Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

RPAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION [MONEY]

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of money to be provided by Parliament of any increase in the money so provided for the payment of Exchequer Equalisation Grants under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, attributable to any Act of the present Session repealing Section 139 of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (General Powers) Act, 1935, and thereby affecting the valuation for rating purposes of hereditaments in the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Exports

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proposals he has in mind for increasing our exports of coal and so solving most of our economic problems.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The Government propose to increase coal exports this year by 2 million tons, as compared with 1951. I cannot at present make any statement about 1953.

Sir T. Moore: As I asked last week, is not the real solution of this problem to import willing foreign labour? In any case, what is the objection?

Mr. Lloyd: I would not say that that was the only solution. It is extremely important to attract more British people to the mines.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not the Minister agree that it is very important, in order that the target of coal production in Ayrshire shall be increased, that the miners shall have a guarantee of decent housing conditions? Will the Minister see that everything is done to speed this up?

Mr. Lloyd: I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement, made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing,


of the Government's new plan to increase housing in the coal-fields by very special measures.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is not the real reason for the decrease in coal exports and the necessity to import coal, simply nationalisation, remote control, the removal of personal responsibility and competition, and the excessive number of bureaucrats and palatial offices?

Summer Prices Scheme

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to householders stocking-up supplies of coal during the period between May and September in preparation for next winter; and what steps he is taking to facilitate these arrangements, including price concessions for summer stocking.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I have approved a summer prices scheme prepared by the National Coal Board and the coal distributors. Details will be announced in due course.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Would the Minister agree that the summer prices scheme has had a great success over the last few years?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I do.

Mr. Victor Yates: Does my right hon. Friend realise the large number of people who have no storage capacity, and will he this time consider issuing some kind of credit note to enable those who cannot store in the summer months to have special supplies?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I appreciate the position of those who have no storage accommodation, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that they get an advantage by those who have storage accommodation taking the coal in the summer and lightening the load on the merchants in the winter. Incidentally, in the hon. Member's constituency there are a large number of houses with cellars.

Space-heating (Simon Report)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to take to discourage continuous space-heating by electricity; and what steps are

now being taken to implement the proposals in regard to domestic heating, contained in the Simon Report, 1946.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Simon Report recommended that the main space-heating load should be carried by solid fuel rather than electricity or gas, and they therefore proposed various measures for the production of improved solid fuel burning appliances and for encouraging their use. Numerous steps have been taken to implement these proposals. At present, a further review of the minimum standards of improved appliances is being undertaken in the light of recent research.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend consider making a somewhat detailed statement upon an appropriate occasion deprecating the continued use of electricity for carrying the continuous space-heating load, as there appears to be considerable misunderstanding on this important matter?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, if a convenient opportunity arose. Of course, my hon. Friend will recollect that while the Simon Report took the line he mentions, it also said that gas and electricity should be used for intermittent space-heating.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this Question and my supplementary question refer only to the use of electricity for continuous space-heating, not for intermittent, on which I am entirely in agreement with him?

Stocks

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the figures for coal stocks at the latest convenient date, compared with 12 months earlier.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I will circulate a table of detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but perhaps the House would like to hear now that the totals are 13,177,000 tons at 8th March as compared with 9,738,000 tons a year ago.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in connection with his summer prices scheme for householders stocking up with coal for next winter, that many merchants' yards at this moment are full to capacity, and that they can accommodate no more, and will he therefore start his scheme at the earliest possible moment?

Following is the table:


COAL—DISTRIBUTED STOCKS


(Thousand tons)


—
8th March, 1952
10th March, 1951


All industry
4,220
3,162


Gas works
2,274
1,843


Electricity works
4,030
2,610


Coke ovens
941
810


Merchants' house coal
710
509


Other consumers
1,002
804


Total
13,177
9,738




COAL—UNDISTRIBUTED STOCKS


(Thousand tons)


—
8th March, 1952
10th March, 1951


At collieries
1,153
1,428


At opencast sites or central stocking grounds:—




(i) Saleable
199
145


(ii) Second quality
130
118


Total
1,482
1,691

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL REFINERY, SOUTHAMPTON

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement as to the progress of negotiations concerning the erection of the proposed oil refinery at Warsash, near Southampton.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Negotiations for acquiring the necessary land are continuing. The plans are still in a preliminary stage, and application for planning consent will not be made until they are more advanced.

Mr. Morley: Is not the Minister aware that the organised workers of Fareham and district and Southampton are very anxious that this project should be speeded up, if possible, to provide alternative employment? Will the Minister use his good offices and his powers of advocacy to see that it is hastened as much as possible?

Dr. Reginald Bennett: While employment is one of the great benefits to come from this scheme, although it is not specific to this scheme alone, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that

other interests in the port of Southampton will not be prejudiced by this scheme, and that all interests will be consulted?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. This is a matter which requires careful consideration of a number of factors—employment and strategic and commercial matters. In any case, there will be an opportunity for an inquiry, if necessary, after planning consent has been applied for.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY (POWER CUTS)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of power cuts that were made in the winters of 1949–20 and 1951–22, respectively.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am informed 16 and four, respectively, Sir.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this reduction in the number of power cuts will give considerable satisfaction throughout the country, particularly in the north-west area?

Mr. Alfred Robens: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that his answer is a tribute to the excellence of the arrangements made by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker)?

Mr. Lloyd: It is also a tribute to the Almighty's disposition of the weather.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Thomas Price: asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that the special privileges conferred on public authorities by the Public Authorities Protection Act cannot be justified in present-day circumstances, particularly where claims for damages arise from running down accidents covered by policies of insurance; and if he will introduce amending legislation to remedy this.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I cannot hold out any hope of early legislation on this subject, which is by no means free from difficulty.

Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this legislation has not been amended, except in one very small particular, since it was enacted in the year 1893? Is he further aware that it is at present inflicting hardship and inconvenience on many litigants who are prejudiced in pursuing actions that would


normally be open to them against any other private individual subject to the Limitation Act, 1939? Does he not agree that this legislation is utterly out of keeping with present needs, since there is now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is carrying on too long.

The Attorney-General: While fully sympathising with the point of view of the hon. Gentleman and his interest in the matter, I can only say that it was considered by the previous Government, which apparently gave full consideration to the Tucker Committee's Report, and decided that no legislation should be introduced. However, we have an open mind on the matter.

Mr. John Wheatley: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman three questions arising out of his answer? Does he realise that we are concerned in this connection with the atttitude of the present Government towards this legislation in view of the Report of the Tucker Committee? Secondly, does he not realise that some reform of the law in this direction is now necessary? Thirdly, if there is to be no immediate amendment of the law in relation to this Act, will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to introduce interim legislation to extend the period of limitation to 12 months in Scotland as in England, as against six months which presently applies?

The Attorney-General: I shall be glad to consider those complicated questions in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Holiday Resorts (Supplies)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure that holiday resorts receive adequate supplies of all rationed foods this summer in order to meet the increased demand which will arise from the curtailment of foreign holidays.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): As my right hon. and gallant Friend explained in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), on 5th March, any increased need for rationed foods in holiday resorts will be met by supplementary permits issued under arrangements that have obtained in recent years.

Sir I. Fraser: But will my hon. Friend have in mind that, if there must be cuts generally, some relaxation of rations to the holiday resorts would benefit all, not merely the towns themselves?

Dr. Hill: In so far as cuts are necessary, they will, as they should, be equitably distributed over the country as a whole.

Eggs (Bakery Trade)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food how many English eggs have been withdrawn from the market since 3rd March and sent to Ministry and sponsored warehouses for the purpose of breaking them out into liquid form for canning and freezing for the bakery trade.

Dr. Hill: The total for the fortnight 3rd to 15th March was 7,724 boxes of 360 second quality eggs each.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Minister agree that it would be much better for the public to have these eggs in shell form than to have them broken up into powder?

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. The eggs find their way to the public in this, as in other forms, and it is desirable, bearing in mind the shortage of dried egg and liquid egg for bakers' purposes, that a proportion of the second quality eggs should be prepared in this form suitable for use by the bakers.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: If any eggs have to be withdrawn from the market, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider withdrawing the eggs marked H, I suppose for "horrible," because they have remained unhatched despite the most strenuous efforts on the part of poultry producers? Will he see that at least those eggs are not sold to the public?

Dr. Hill: Those eggs with evidence of infertility are receiving a great deal of attention at the present moment.

Cream

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Minister of Food to what extent he intends to allow the manufacture of cream this year.

Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilford, South


(Squadron Leader Cooper) on Monday, 25th February.

Prices

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that with the removal of food subsidies on the basic rationed foods and the increase in petrol tax, the prices of unrationed foods will inevitably rise in price; and whether, to prevent profiteering, he will introduce price control on these foods, especially such foods as fish, rabbits, poultry, fruit and vegetables and tinned meats.

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking to control the prices of fruit and vegetables, bearing in mind particularly the increased petrol tax.

Dr. Hill: Tinned meats are already subject to a wide measure of price control. My right hon. and gallant Friend does not consider that price control over the other foods mentioned would be in the best interests of the consumer.

Mr. Lewis: But is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the housewife has become fed up with the continual rise in the price of foodstuffs, particularly since the reduction of the subsidy; and does he not think it is about time the Government did something to implement their promise of reducing the cost of living?

Dr. Hill: In the case of perishable commodities, and those subject to wide fluctuations of supply and demand, a system of price control is undesirable for manufacturer, consumer and producer.

Miss Burton: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that in my Question the increase is an increase in the cost of distribution, and why is it that this Government are determined at all costs to prevent an inquiry into the cost of distribution which is continually sending up the prices of fruit and vegetables?

Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady is aware of the inquiries that were made by the predecessor of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and she is aware that no valid conclusions can be drawn from those inquiries.

Hon. Members: Oh, yes.

Miss Burton: Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is aware that this side of the House had definite plans for looking into the profits of the middlemen

in this industry, and why is it that the present Government are determined to do nothing about that?

Dr. Hill: The present Government are not convinced that in the case of such perishable commodities the institution of a system of price controls would be beneficial to the consumer.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman's Department has recently removed some price controls on certain types of tinned meat, and how does he reconcile this with the answer which he has just given?

Dr. Hill: The general effect of the Order recently made in the field of canned meat and other products is to extend, consolidate and bring up to date the price controls. Although a few items are released from price control, others formerly uncontrolled are now included.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that since the Government have been in office—a very short period of time—prices have done nothing but rise, and rise rapidly? Is he not aware that that is entirely contradictory to his party's promise at the time of the Election, and will he not do something or advise the Government to resign?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the gross exaggeration contained in the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Minister of Food the present price of bread per lb.

Dr. Hill: The standard maximum price for the English 1¾ lb. loaf is 7½d., which is equivalent to 4 2/7d. per lb.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that flour that is unfit for human consumption is manufactured into dog biscuits and sold at 1s. 2d. per carton of 14 oz., which includes the weight of the carton?

Dr. Hill: The flour which goes to the manufacture of dog biscuits, the quality of which is unknown to me, is unsubsidised. It is, further, believed that dog biscuits contain certain other nutritious elements.

Mr. Robens: Is it not a fact that bread is at a higher price today than at any period in this century?

Mr. Nabarro: We did not ration it.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that soon, by the way we are going on, we shall all be eating dog biscuits?

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he can now state the increased prices of food items affected by the Budget.

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend cannot at present add to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening his Budget.

Mrs. Mann: Can the hon. Gentleman say how soon we may know the worst? Is he aware that Glasgow Grocers and Provision Merchants Association say that the Government are deceiving the people when they state that prices will be increased by only 1s. 6d.?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend will announce the increases of price at the appropriate time, in accordance with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Hon. Members: When?

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister if, in regard to this and several other Questions, he will remember the principle that if you restrict consumption you restrict production and that rationing and controls are the main reason for the increase in prices?

Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend will take account of all the hon. Member has said.

New Zealand Meat Shipments

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Food what information he has of the quantity of meat at present available for shipment from New Zealand; how long it has been held up awaiting loading; and what representations have been made to the New Zealand Government to expedite dispatch in view of the shortage of meat in this country.

Dr. Hill: On 1st March, the latest date for which information is available, there were, I understand, 90,000 tons of meat and offal in store, all from the current season's production. Our needs have been made fully known to the New Zealand authorities and to the shippers, and my right hon. and gallant Friend has discussed the matter personally with Mr. Holland. He wishes me to take this

opportunity of acknowledging the great efforts which Mr. Holland's Government are making to speed up loadings.

Potatoes

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that sales of potatoes are falling off because of the inferior quality and poor grading; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the position.

Dr. Hill: Sales in January and February were as high as a year ago. In general, quality and grading are good, though complaints are sometimes received and in all cases investigated.

Miss Burton: I am more up to date than the hon. Gentleman, obviously. We are now in March. Is the Minister aware that sales of potatoes have been falling off for this reason? Secondly, will he answer the question that he avoided before: why are the Government determined to do nothing about the cost of distribution? I was not speaking about price control.

Dr. Hill: I confined my answer to the subject of the Question—potatoes. I am glad that the hon. Lady has statistics available to her which have not yet been prepared.

Miss Burton: On the matter of statistics, is the hon. Gentleman aware that mine come from the housewives, and are much better than ordinary statistics. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman asks me to confine my remarks to the Question, will he apply that to himself on Questions in future?

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if he does not soon move some of the main crop of potatoes from the Isle of Ely, the quality of potatoes for human consumption will deteriorate very rapidly, and some of them will not even be fit for stock feeding?

Dr. Hill: Careful consideration is being given to the East Anglian position.

Supplies

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement showing the quantity, quality and variety of food, as compared with 1st November, 1951.

Dr. Hill: Because of seasonal variations, no valid comparisons of quantity


can be made for periods of less than 12 months. Quality and variety do not lend themselves to statistical expression.

Mr. Hynd: Although the Minister may not have detailed statistics, is he not aware that in every respect the Government are falling short of their election promises under these headings?

Queensland Corporation

Mr. Christopher Hollis: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Queensland Food Corporation.

Dr. Hill: I cannot at present add to the information in the Report and the reply which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd on 27th February.

Mr. Hollis: Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to Press reports at any rate, there is a very radical difference of opinion between the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman as to what should be the future policy of the Corporation, and that it is a matter of very considerable anxiety that we should know as soon as possible where we are going?

Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend will realise that the Corporation is in the process of establishing the Committee of Investigation which was provided for in the agreement, and that future steps will be decided, no doubt, by the Corporation, by the Queensland Government and by Her Majesty's Government in the light of the report of that Committee.

Statutory Instruments (Signature)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food why Statutory Instruments, 1952, Nos. 527 and 528, increasing the prices of bread and flour, are signed neither by him nor his Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr. Hill: Doubtless for the same reason that certain Orders were signed by senior officials of the Department while the hon. Member held office. It so happened that neither my right hon. and gallant Friend nor myself was available.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while I held office, all the Orders were signed by either my right hon. Friend or myself? Is he further aware that it is regarded as lack of courtesy to the House for an important Order like this not to be signed by the

Minister, and that as the Order was signed on a Friday we assume that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are now working a four-day week?

Dr. Hill: May I refresh the hon. Member's recollection? Two Orders were signed by officials during the period from March, 1950, to October, 1951, as well as two during the Dissolution period. On the second point, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the impending Order in his Budget speech on the Tuesday, drafting began on the Tuesday night, the Orders were ready for signature late on the Friday and they were to be placed on the Table of the House on the Saturday, but my right hon. Friend and I were not in London on the Friday night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] I was in my constituency, and my right hon. and gallant Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If I am asked to withdraw I should like the hon. Gentleman to mention the names of the two Orders and the dates on which they were signed. As he says, this is an important Order, which followed the Budget statement. Parliament was sitting. It is, surely, quite unprecedented for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary both to be unavailable to sign the Order?

Dr. Hill: If it helps the hon. Member and he will put down a Question, I will give him the exact dates and substance of the Orders.

Cattle Supplies, Madagascar

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the large cattle population and exports of preserved meat from Madagascar; and whether he will investigate the possibility of drawing supplies for the United Kingdom from this source.

Dr. Hill: This suggestion has already been acted upon, but I am sorry to say that we cannot regard the island as a promising source of meat for this country.

Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend aware that while there is already a large head of cattle in the island, there is a lot of fertile land there which could carry a much larger head of improved cattle, and will he see whether something on the


lines suggested can be done for the benefit of this country?

Dr. Hill: I will see that the question is re-examined.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is, and has been for a long time, a British firm established near Majunga, which used to export frozen meat to this country before the war? Cannot these exports now be resumed?

Dr. Hill: It is not as simple as that. There was in 1950 an export of some 3,600 tons of beef and about 3,600 tons of canned meat, mainly to France. There was an export of some 1,700 head of cattle, but the quality of the meat presents difficulties.

Offal (Distribution)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food the details of the method whereby offal, including sheep's head and oxtail, are distributed throughout the country.

Dr. Hill: Imported offal and offal from slaughterhouses are distributed to retail butchers in proportion to the quantities of meat they purchase for ration purposes.

Sir I. Fraser: But what about home output? Can my hon. Friend explain why in my constituency and in London we just cannot get an oxtail or a cowtail?

Hon. Members: They are Manx.

Dr. Hill: There is distributed to the retail butchers a quantity of offal which in weight is 11 per cent. of the ration allocation. The distribution of offal to his customers by a butcher is a matter for his own discretion.

Sir I. Fraser: But can my hon. Friend assure us that oxtails, cowtails and sheeps' heads and all these other things are distributed pro rata and fairly to butchers all over the country, from both imported and home-grown sources?

Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true or not that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in offal since this awful Government have been returned?

Bread and Flour (Subsidy Saving)

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food how much he expects to recoup

towards the reduction of the food subsidy during the year 1952–23 by the recent increases in the prices of bread and flour.

Dr. Hill: About £48 million.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Improvement

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport if he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate and report, as early as possible, on the adequacy of the roads to meet modem needs; the conditions created by increasing traffic and speed; and the urgent need to reduce accidents and fear on the roads.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): As regards road safety, I would refer to the answers I gave on 25th February to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). The need to improve roads is not in doubt, but must be considered in relation to other claims upon national resources. A Royal Commission to examine this matter would not in my view be justified.

Mr. Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Prime Minister, who I understand is responsible for advising Her Majesty as to whether a Royal Commission should be set up? Has the Prime Minister given consideration to the very serious conditions which now exist on the roads and, if a Royal Commission is not to investigate, can we have a Departmental Committee to investigate?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think it is usual to disclose what discussions go on in the Government, but I would remind the hon. Member that this whole question is being most seriously studied. One has to be very careful of one's ground before advising a Royal Commission, because urgency is what matters. We are doing everything we can to cut down the number of road accidents.

Overhanging Loads (Safety Regulations)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger to other road users arising from failure to observe paragraph 44 of the Highway Code; and whether be will consider strengthening the law in the interests of all other road users including pedestrians.

Mr. Maclay: I have at present no evidence suggesting that paragraph 44 of the Highway Code is generally disregarded, or that it is necessary to strengthen the law in this matter.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is continually disregarded and that this paragraph 44 only requires the ends of projecting loads to be marked in day time by a white cloth or "something else," which is not very specific and, further, that it does not take very long on a dirty road for a white cloth to become invisible and projecting loads on main roads to constitute a considerable danger?

Mr. Maclay: I shall be very grateful if my hon. Friend will give some definite evidence. I have noted his point about the white cloth not being satisfactory.

Carpenters Road, Stratford (Repairs)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the dangerous stretch of highway outside Messrs. Yardley's factory, Carpenters Road, Stratford, details of which have been supplied to him; and whether, in view of the grave financial difficulties confronting the West Ham Borough Council, he will consider making them a special financial grant to enable them to resurface this admittedly dangerous section of Carpenters Road.

Mr. Maclay: I have no funds available for this purpose and I am debarred by the Local Government Act, 1929, from making a grant from the Road Fund for such work in a county borough.

School Crossings, Birmingham (Removal)

Mr. Percy Shurmer: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that in the City of Birmingham, 215 school's which previously had pedestrian crossings outside, no longer have them; and, in view of the need to prevent accidents among children, if he will take action to approve the restoration of these crossings.

Mr. Maclay: I believe the hon. Member's figures of 215 is on the high side. I feel sure that where children have to cross busy roads near schools the real answer is for adult patrols to see them safely across the road and that uncontrolled pedestrian crossings which are little used except by school children can

be more of a danger than a safeguard to them. I do not think, therefore, that I can approve of the restoration of such crossings.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this involves something like 100,000 children, that the parents are greatly concerned at the removal of these crossings and that only 95 of the schools have decided to have school wardens? Is he aware that there were very few accidents previous to the removal of these crossings and does he think he will save children's lives by removing crossings in these dangerous streets?

Mr. Maclay: I must assure the hon. Member that it is with the interests of the children at heart that we believe these crossings can be more of a menace than a safety.

Mr. Charles Pannell: In view of the hon. Gentleman's declaration in favour of controlled pedestrian crossings outside schools, can I bring to his notice the fact that Kent County Council, as a measure of economy, following the circular issued by his right hon. Friend, propose to abolish all school road safety patrols in the county? What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Maclay: That seems to be an entirely different question.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Reverting to the Birmingham position, has not the hon. Gentleman received a letter sent by me from a headmaster pointing out the dangers to children outside his school where a pedestrian crossing has been moved and placed about 150 yards up the road? It is not good enough to say that parents can be disregarded: what about schoolmasters?

Mr. Maclay: I have not said that parents should be disregarded. We are working on the problem and hope sooner or later—I hope sooner—that patrols outside the schools will be trained by the police. We are working on the matter as fast as we can.

Pedestrian-Controlled Electric Vehicles

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that C licences are no longer required for pedestrian-controlled electric


vehicles, he will arrange for the licence fees to be refunded and, if necessary, for the amendment of the regulations to make this possible.

Mr. Maclay: I will consider the suggestion and will Communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (SHIFTWORKERS' TICKETS)

Mr. Bernard Braille: asked the Minister of Transport whether, when referring to the Central Transport Consultative Committee recent alterations in fare stages and fares in relation to them, he will direct the attention of that body to the special circumstances obtaining in South Essex, where recent alterations are causing hardship, especially to shift-workers using the Fenchurch Street-Southend line.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many persons in the metropolitan area, desirous of assisting the national effort, have become shift-workers; that some of these have found, since the recent increase in fares, that the cost of travel to and from their place of work has more than doubled; and if he will refer this question to the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that workmen working on a night-shift cannot obtain workmen's travel tickets; and if he will refer this matter to the Central Transport Consultative Committee.

Mr. Maclay: Under the authority of the Charges Scheme, recently confirmed by the Transport Tribunal, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Transport Act, 1947, passed by the late Government, shift-workers' tickets ceased to be issued in the London Area on 2nd of March. I am not aware that any change in this respect has so far taken place outside London.
I am advised that the principle involved is not one which could properly be referred by me to the Consultative Committee. In the discussions which took place before the Transport Tribunal on this matter, the Commission made clear their intention to withdraw these tickets and they were left free to do so by the Tribunal.
I am informed, however, that representations have been made by interested parties to the Consultative Committee on the subject of shift-workers' tickets and the matter is, therefore, before them.
All the relevant statutory provisions and all the functions exercised by the British Transport Commission result from legislation introduced by the late Government and are a definite feature in the nationalisation policy.

Mr. Braine: Can my hon. Friend state whether there is any way in which this matter may be reconsidered in view of the very great hardship being caused to my constituents who use the London-Southend line? If there is no way in which it can be reconsidered, will be take note that the whole country will be behind him if he will take early steps to end the operation of this soulless monopoly?

Mr. Maclay: In reply to the first half of the question, the London-Essex line was before the Transport Tribunal in 1950, but I have very much in mind all my hon. Friend has been saying and will certainly bear in mind the latter part of his supplementary question.

Mr. T. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that similar hardships are being created in the Wigan area of Lancashire, affecting many of my constituents, due to the withdrawal of workmen's concessions and the increase recently awarded under the Act? Will he take steps to inquire into these hardships which in some cases—and I will give details to the hon. Gentleman—will inflict an increased fare of approximately 200 per cent. upon working men and women?

Mr. Maclay: That is just the kind of thing about which I have been showing concern, but I suppose the hon. Member is aware that he is asking me to review and revise the Transport Act, 1947, as quickly as I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY BRANCH LINES (CLOSURE)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to what instructions have been given to the Transport Commission with regard to the closing of local railway lines for passenger traffic and the provision of alternative omnibus services, in accord-


ance with powers given him by Section 4 (1) of the Transport Act, 1947.

Mr. Maclay: None, Sir.

Mr. Vane: Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of stations in country areas have been closed for passenger traffic, and does he appreciate the dissatisfaction caused locally, since no alternative arrangements to provide transport by bus ever seemed to be made in these cases?

Mr. Maclay: May I suggest that where that has happened it is a case for reference to the local area consultative committee. I understand that in future any proposals to close down a branch line will be submitted to the consultative committee before any decision to that effect is taken.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Would the Minister look at the question of the closing of the line at Southport? He said that no line had been closed. His information is incorrect, because a line has been closed. Will he look into that matter?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that I said no line had been closed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will permit Parliamentary observers to attend the atom bomb test in Australia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): The arrangements for this test are under consideration with Her Majesty's Government in Australia; but I can hold out no expectation that Parliamentary observers will be able to attend.

Sir I. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say if Parliamentary observers went to the tests in the Pacific which the Americans arranged?

The Prime Minister: I cannot, without notice, say what arrangements took place in the tests in the Pacific; but at any rate it would not affect the substance of the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not recollect that there were two Members of this

House, one belonging to his party and one to mine, who did attend these tests?

The Prime Minister: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for refreshing my memory upon this matter, and indeed furnishing me with information, but I have nothing to add to what I said.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether that was not a useful precedent? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consult one of the members of his own Government, in the Admiralty, who was one of the representatives?

The Prime Minister: I should be very much obliged for any assistance of that character.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now decided if any adjustments should be made in the existing statutory responsibility of the Minister of Supply for work on atomic energy; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: In view of the fact that important experiments are to be made in the autumn of this year, I have felt that this is not the appropriate moment to make radical changes in the existing arrangements or to create a new organisation on a long-term basis. It has therefore been decided to make no change for the present in the statutory responsibility of the Minister of Supply in regard to atomic energy. As indicated, however, in my reply of 15th November, to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), the Paymaster-General will continue to advise me on atomic energy questions and to exercise general supervision over work in this field.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Prime Minister aware that the decision not to alter the administrative set-up and responsibility which has existed during the past four years is considered, anyhow by some of those responsible for the development of this work during that period, as being a very wise one?

The Prime Minister: A very wise one? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment, which is also a compliment to himself.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement by


the Prime Minister about atomic bombing, and in view of the fact that we are not being told anything about atomic bombing, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Mr. William A. Steward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a recent British Broadcasting Corporation overseas broadcast received in British Guiana, showed British Middle Eastern policy in an unfavourable light; and if he will take steps to ensure that these broadcasts are not harmful to British interests in the future.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I am not aware of this. If my hon. Friend will send me details I will look into the matter.

Mr. Steward: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that on 24th January of this year the B.B.C. G.M.T. overseas news bulletin broadcast Egyptian views of British atrocities in Egypt, and as the suggestion that our gallant boys in Egypt should be guilty of any atrocities is completely false, would he please use his best endeavours to stop the B.B.C. broadcasting such propaganda, which is detrimental to British interests?

Mr. Eden: As I have said to my hon. Friend just now, I am not aware of it, but if he will give me some information and send details I will look into it.

Mr. R. T. Paget: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the reputation of the B.B.C. is based upon its being objective and giving both sides of the case?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask what powers are possessed by my right hon. Friend other than moral persuasion?

Mr. Eden: If I am given the facts, I have no doubt I can discuss the matter objectively, as appears to be the desire of both sides of the House.

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Soviet Union's efforts to jam certain British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts have now been fully extended to Czecho-

Slovak broadcasts; that there has been sporadic interference with the Slovak and Hungarian services; that further efforts to jam broadcasts to Iron Curtain countries can be expected; and whether he will now give an assurance that the cost of the efforts to overcome the jamming will not result in further reduction in the British Broadcasting Corporation's Overseas Service.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I am aware that the jamming of transmissions to Iron Curtain countries is being steadily extended, but I am not yet in a position to say how the measures to overcome this jamming will be financed.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while everyone on this side of the House will understand the great need of urgent Government economies, there are strong feelings that any further reduction in the B.B.C. Overseas Service will be false economy?

Mr. Eden: I would have answered a Question, had it been asked, but I cannot make a statement on this now; I hope to be able to do so very shortly.

Mr. John Hynd: Is it not the case that the economies already incurred by the Government would have a serious effect on the possibility of preventing this jamming?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. No action is being withheld on that account; action is proceeding now.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (AGRICULTURAL ADVISER)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for how long he proposes to retain Mr. H. D. Walston as unpaid agricultural adviser to his Department.

Mr. Eden: Mr. H. D. Walston holds no position of any kind in the Foreign Office. He was the agricultural adviser to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was then responsible for the German Section of the Foreign Office, from 1947 to 1949. The appointment was on a part-time unsalaried basis, and lapsed on 20th May, 1949.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if he requires any similar advice for his Department in the coming months or years there


are many Cambridgeshire farmers far more qualified than Mr. Walston?

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think it most undesirable that the Order Paper of the House of Commons—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear what is said. Is the hon. Member rising on a point of order?

Mr. Foot: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Is it not most undesirable that the Order Paper of the House of Commons should be used for the purpose of a quite gratuitous attack on a gentleman who has given service in the past under the Government in an unpaid position, and that such slurs should be made by the hon. Member?

Mr. Eden: That clearly is not a matter for me.

Mr. Speaker: The Question on the Order Paper contains no attack on any one. It is in the supplementary question that some suggestions were made, and it is, I ought to say, not in accordance with the best usage of this House to make attacks in Parliament on people who cannot answer back.

Major Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and the Ruling you have just given. I was not intending in any way to reflect on this gentleman. What I was saying was that there are other efficient farmers in Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member was open to that interpretation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and was open to the innocent interpretation as well.

Major Legge-Bourke: If that was so, may I please have the opportunity of withdrawing, as it certainly was not my intention to cast reflection.

Mr. Baker White: May I be allowed to say that I intended no personal attack on Mr. Walston? Having got the information I required, I did not ask a supplementary question. There is one which I could ask, which could be most pertinent, but I do not propose to ask it.

Mr. Speaker: I think we can consider the incident as closed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT OFFICE (INFORMATION)

Mr. Ronald Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are taken to keep the Passport Office promptly informed of any changes in the regulations governing entry permits into countries overseas.

Mr. Eden: The Passport Office receives information about conditions of entry and residence in countries overseas from a great variety of sources. While every effort is made to keep this information full and up-to-date, it is manifestly impossible for the Passport Office to guarantee its accuracy, and applicants for passport facilities are accordingly advised by means of a pamphlet entitled "Passport and Visa Notes" to make inquiries of the authorities in London of the countries concerned. The pamphlet includes a warning that the particulars given in it are liable to alteration from time to time. I am considering how to ensure that this warning receives greater prominence.

Mr. Russell: Would my right hon. Friend agree that information about British possessions overseas could be accurate and should be available to the Passport Office?

Mr. Eden: Sometimes these matters change. I want the warning to be more firm that they may change.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N. FORCES, KOREA (RUSSIAN COMPLAINT)

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations concerning the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' official complaint that United Nations forces in Korea have been guilty of carrying on germ warfare.

Mr. Eden: A report has been received from the Permanent United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations on the discussions in the first meeting of the Disarmament Commission in New York on 14th March, at which the Soviet representative repeated the charges of germ warfare by United Nations forces in Korea. The United States delegate recalled that Mr. Acheson had unequivocally refuted this charge which was


entirely unwarranted and false. Mr. Acheson had also suggested an impartial investigation by an international agency, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to obtain the facts. In the view of Her Majesty's Government this is a fair and proper offer and we wholeheartedly support it.

Mr. Henderson: Has this offer to arrange for the International Red Cross investigation been made direct to the Chinese Government in Peking and, if so, what was their reply?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The International Red Cross sent a letter to Mr. Acheson himself, to the North Korean Commander-in-Chief and to the Commander of the Chinese Forces in Korea—all three of them—expressing willingness to undertake an investigation provided it is acceptable to both sides. So far as I am aware, there has been no response as yet from the Communist side. I ought to add that there has also been an offer by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to provide a body under their authority; but, if I may express a view, I think that the International Red Cross is the best suited of all for this purpose.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that bacteriological warfare under any circumstances should be prohibited? Is he prepared to allow the International Red Cross to investigate the preparations for bacteriological warfare which are alleged to have been made in this country, and can the right hon. Gentleman categorically deny that such preparations for bacteriological warfare are being made in Great Britain?

Mr. Eden: That is the first I have ever heard of anything of the kind, but if investigations are required into that, perhaps a Question could be put down. What I am dealing with here is the definite and precise Communist charge on which we have offered an international inquiry. If the hon. Member has other charges to make against his country, or any other, we might investigate them, too.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that in the disarmament proposals which we and the other Western Powers put to the Disarmament Commission, we have in fact offered to allow the fullest investigation into every kind of preparation for warlike

operation, and the Soviet Union have not yet agreed to those proposals?

Mr. Eden: That is absolutely true. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his timely reminder.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and as I have already put a Question on the Order Paper which was unsatisfactorily answered, I give notice that I will raise the matter and ask for the fullest possible inquiry to be made into our attitude to bacteriological warfare.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Re-armament Sub-contracts

Mr. W. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Supply if his attention has been drawn to circular letters, copies of which have been shown to him, sent out by a firm offering to act as agent on commission for obtaining armament subcontracts; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir. It was made clear to the firm in questioin that the Ministry of Supply disapproved of this activity and I understand it has now ceased.

Mr. Taylor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that satisfactory reply, may I ask him whether he will go a little further and say that, to discourage any future undesirable activity of this kind, he will keep in closer touch with the engineering associations when compiling his list of approved sub-contractors so as to provide a proper opportunity for the smaller firms to play their full part in the re-armament drive?

Mr. Sandys: The Ministry of Supply regional organisation have already got very full lists of potential sub-contracting capacity, and its staff are available to give advice to all firms looking for subcontracts.

Engineering Firms, Bolton (Steel)

Mr. Arthur Holt: asked the Minister of Supply if he will ensure that sufficient supplies of steel are available to engineering firms in Bolton and district, so that the present unemployment in the


cotton industry will not be increased by unemployment in the engineering firms due to shortage of materials.

Mr. Sandys: I know of no reason why the shortage of steel should affect employment in the cotton industry. However, if the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case he has in mind, I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. Holt: That is not an answer to the Question, which relates to supplies of steel available in engineering firms in Bolton.

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member will look at his own Question he will see that he asks whether I will ensure:
… that sufficient supplies of steel are available to engineering firms in Bolton and district, so that the present unemployment in the cotton industry will not be increased by unemployment in the engineering firms due to shortage of materials.
Frankly, I cannot see how the shortage of steel in the engineering industry can affect employment in the cotton industry.

Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a firm in Bolton have informed me that they are short of steel and that if they do not get an increased supply they will have to throw off 35 per cent. of their workpeople, which will merely add to the unemployment already existing in the cotton industry?

Mr. Sandys: That is a somewhat different question. If the hon. Member is saying that Bolton has been less well treated for steel than other parts of the country, I will gladly look into the matter; but there is, of course, a shortage of steel throughout the engineering industry.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of engineering firms in Bolton and other similar centres are engaged on the production of plant for the modernisation of the cotton industry and also for its maintenance? In view of that, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will make an investigation into this matter so that there will be no steel shortages in these places?

Mr. Sandys: I recognise the necessity for steel for improving plant for the cotton industry, but I do not believe that shortage of plant is one of the causes of the unemployment in that industry.

New Cars (Distribution)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that demonstration cars sent, to distributors by manufacturers are not registered with the British Motor Trade Association, as they are issued without covenant; and, in view of the abuse to which this system leads, if he will take steps to control the distribution of such cars.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Miss Burton: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was saying "No" to both parts of the Question, or only "No" to the latter part, and may I ask him for an explanation?

Mr. Sandys: It is "No" to both parts of the Question.

Miss Burton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that I have cases, of which I have submitted examples to him, of cars being sold off covenant, which were issued as demonstration models, and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Sandys: I really must point out to the hon. Lady that it is not my business to look into all these very detailed complaints about the internal administration of the motorcar industry. I have no powers to control the distribution of motorcars, nor have I the slightest desire to acquire them.

Miss Burton: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you are aware that the right hon. Gentleman has kept asking me to send him these details? I have done so, and now he does not want them. Where should these details be sent?

Mr. Speaker: This is a very complicated Question, and I do not think the answer to it will be found in Erskine May.

TRIESTE (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Paget: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the situation in Trieste.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.
I regret to inform the House that serious disturbances broke out in Trieste on 20th March, and, according to my information, are still continuing.
The disturbances developed during a demonstration organised by Italian political groups in Trieste to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the tripartite declaration of 1948 about the future of the Free Territory. The local city police were forced to intervene, and the situation was subsequently aggravated by a general strike which was called in protest against their allegedly brutal action.
I have received reports on the matter from General Sir John Winterton, the Zone Commander, who is solely responsible for the maintenance of order. I am satisfied that the allegations against the police are unfounded. The House will realise that these police are drawn from the predominantly Italian population of Trieste, and act under orders from the Anglo-United States Allied Military Government. All reports indicate that they behaved with exemplary restraint in the face of considerable provocation. Tear gas and fire hoses had to be used, but there was no shooting. Unfortunately, many persons, including policemen, have been injured, but there have so far been no fatal casualties. There has also been some damage to military vehicles and establishments. All British and American troops were confined to barracks as soon as the disturbances began.
A number of rioters have been arrested and the majority have been found to be members of the Neo-Fascist Party.
General Winterton has been in constant touch with the local Triestine authorities and with the Italian Government representative.
I myself propose to discuss the situation later today with the Italian Ambassador and am in communication with the United States Government who share with us the responsibility for Zone A of Trieste.
In the circumstances, I should prefer not to say anything further at this stage beyond urging upon all concerned the need for restraint and a due sense of responsibility.
I am sure that the House will be as anxious as I am myself to see these disturbances brought to a speedy end in the interests of the future of the Territory itself and of that friendship between Britain and Italy by which we set so much store.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

FOREIGN MINISTERS' MEETINGS, PARIS

Council of Europe (United Kingdom Proposals)

Mr. Eden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House, I should like to make a brief statement on last week's meetings in Paris.
I travelled last week to Paris to attend a meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This was the first occasion on which I had taken part in the work of this Organisation. We all realise that the Council of Europe has an important part to play in furthering co-operation between the countries of Western Europe.
It has, I think, been clear for some time, both in this country and elsewhere, that some changes were needed in its structure and functions to bring it up-to-date with what has happened in Europe since its inception in 1949. Since that time, there have been certain developments of major importance which bid fair to change the shape of Western Europe.
First, the European Defence Community and the Schuman Plan. Her Majesty's Government have made it plain on several occasions that they intend to associate themselves as closely as possible with these European organisations at all stages.
While these plans have been proceeding, another line of development has been taking place in the shape of the Atlantic association of States, who are achieving increasing unity of purpose and action through the machinery of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
We have been considering how the Council of Europe can best fulfil the important part which it has to play in these developments inside and outside Europe. It would clearly be a misfortune if the Council of Europe were to become, so to speak, a rival of the European Defence Community or of the Schuman Plan, or of any future European bodies of that kind.
There seemed, then, a strong need to re-examine the position of the Council of Europe and to see how it can be adopted to this new situation. I therefore put forward in the name of Her Majesty's Government certain proposals of our own.
In brief, they are that the Council of Europe should be remodelled so that it can provide the institutions called for by the Schuman Plan and the European Defence Community or any future organisation of similar structure. Of course, the Council of Europe would also continue to serve as an organisation for inter-Governmental co-operation in Western Europe. In particular, we think it valuable that the Council of Europe should continue to receive and debate periodical reports from the O.E.E.C.
As I made plain to my colleagues in the Committee of Ministers, I put forward these proposals not as a hard and fast plan but as a possible basis for our future work together. I have been greatly heartened by the sympathetic welcome which they received from the members of the Committee. They have now been accepted for detailed consideration and will be re-examined by the Committee of Ministers in May.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Am I right in assuming that the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the Council of Europe implies that it is the intention that that Council shall continue to be purely advisory and is not on the way to becoming some kind of supra-national authority?

Mr. Eden: Our proposals were to associate the Council of Europe practically with the work of these two particular plans—the Schuman Plan and the European Defence Community. They will now consider our proposals and report back to us in May what their findings are. There will then be further discussions before the Assembly meets.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly whether or not it is the intention of the Government that the Consultative Assembly should remain advisory and not get the powers of a State council?

Mr. Eden: My proposals contained no modifications of the powers of the Assembly as a whole. They are only proposals as to how these particular plans may be fitted in to some of the work of the Council.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May we know when we are to have the proposals put before the House? Is a White Paper to be issued, and do the proposals differ from those already discussed in the Council of Europe?

Mr. Eden: I am bound to say that people said they were the first constructive proposals they had had in the Council.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Are the very important proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has announced in any way inconsistent with the wish often expressed at Strasbourg that the United States should be more closely associated with the work of the Council of Europe?

Mr. Eden: No, I do not think they are at all. My purpose was to provide useful work for the Council to do. I thought these proposals were accepted in that spirit, and I hope they will do it.

Mr. Hall: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the first part of my question. Are we going to be told what the proposals are before they are discussed in May?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps it would be convenient if I laid them as a White Paper.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: To make the future structure of the Council clear, is it not the case that it is going to have executive powers in relation to the two institutions—the European Defence Community and the Schuman Plan—and that it is also going to be consultative in regard to the plenary session? Does not that mean that we, by our association with the reform of the Council of Europe, will, therefore, be associated with a body which now has executive powers?

Mr. Eden: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's analysis seemed admirably clear and correct, but I am not sure that I follow him entirely in his conclusion. May I suggest that I will submit these proposals for examination, when they can, of course, be discussed. There is no commitment of any kind at the present stage as they are to be examined by all the Foreign Secretaries and discussed afterwards.

The Saar

Mr. Eden: I should like to say a word about the Saar.
This question has for some time been on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
Owing to the statesmanship shown by the German Federal Government and the French and the Saar Governments, it


proved unnecessary for the Committee to discuss this difficult and contentious problem in Paris. Dr. Adenauer and M. Schuman were able to reach agreement between themselves and with M. Hoffmann, the Saar Prime Minister, that the French and German Governments shall continue their discussions to reach a permanent settlement of the Saar question. Meanwhile, representatives of the two Governments are to meet in the Saar with representatives of the Saar Government in order to determine that acceptable conditions of freedom exist for the elections which are to be held in the Saar territory this year.
There are still many difficulties and much work remains to be done. However, I trust that a beginning has now been made which, with continued goodwill, will enable the Saar to take its due place in the European community.

Germany (U.S.S.R. Note)

Mr. Eden: I was able to take the opportunity of the meetings in Paris to consult with representatives of the French and U.S. Governments about the Soviet Government's recent Note, proposing a peace treaty for Germany.
M. Schuman, the United States Ambassador to France and I also discussed the matter with the German Federal Chancellor.
We found that our four Governments were in full agreement. I hope that the reply will be delivered to the Soviet Government very shortly.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the terms of the reply to the Soviet Union are likely to be made public?

Mr. Eden: I think it is right and also polite—though it is not always done—that this note should be delivered to the Soviet Government before any question of publication arises. I would rather stick to that formula.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply be taken before Ten o'clock.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1952£53, AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951£52

REPORT [6th March]

VOTE A.—NUMBERS

Resolution reported,
That 153,000 Officers, Seamen and Boys and Royal Marines, who are borne on the Books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.46 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Edwards: I would remind the House that on a similar occasion to this, last year, the Admiralty were fortunate enough to get through the Report stage without any discussion at all. But, in 1950, the Admiralty were not so fortunate. The hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Commander Galbraith), felt on that occasion that the Opposition had not been given sufficient information in the debate on the Navy Estimates, and, therefore, the Report stage that year took some little time.
I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House in what I have to say this afternoon. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that I posed a number of questions to him on the occasion of the Navy Estimates to which he was only able to give a small number of answers. I do not complain about that. Indeed, I was glad when he sat down, as he himself was, because I wanted some sleep. But there are a number of points to which I should like the Civil Lord to reply today if he can and would.
The first is a matter which I have raised before, the question of dental surgeons in the Navy. I am sure that with an increased Vote A and with the increased responsibility of dentists attending civil persons, it is absolutely essential that our dental services in the Navy should be increased rather than reduced. It is my


view that to make a reduction in the dental services—which may be an economy measure rather than one which is absolutely essential—whilst at the same time increasing the number of Admirals is not quite the right thing to do or the right way of looking at economies.
Then there is the very important question which I also raised last time, the reduction of the Admiralty Constabulary. It has been the desire of both sides of the House in the last two or three years to see that our naval establishments are properly policed owing to sabotage, particularly after the two explosions which took place. But I notice that in almost every Vote there is a reduction of Admiralty Constabulary. This, again, appears to be another case of false economy.
Another point with which I wish to deal is the administration of the funds which the House voted on the Navy Estimates for running the Navy next year. It will be noted that in Votes 9 and 10 quite a large amount of additional technical staff is required, and a large sum of extra money is provided in the Estimates for next year because of that requirement. I would like to know what the Admiralty propose to do to make certain that the required number of technicians are obtained so that the Navy can carry out its planned programme and spend the money provided by the House.
In addition to the question of technicians, there is also the very important point with regard to skilled labour in the dockyards. I am sure that our planned programme for next year will fall down unless something is done about obtaining the necessary skilled labour to enable the Admiralty to carry out both its modernisation and refit programmes.
Without that, the Estimates recently submitted to the House will be of very little use at all. Can the Civil Lord say whether any action is being taken to obtain the necessary technical staff under both Vote 9 and Vote 10? Can he also say what steps are being taken with regard to increasing the size of the skilled labour force, particularly in home ports, to ensure that our planned programme will be carried out in the proper way?
I should like to say a few words on Vote 10. I must repeat that I was very annoyed when I found that what small

provision had been left in the Estimates for new works next year in naval barracks, married quarters and in the dockyards had been taken out. It appears there is what almost amounts to a moratorium on the works services of the Admiralty and this takes benefits away from men on the lower deck and from those who have to carry out their work within the dockyards. I said on the last occasion that I did not blame anybody for the condition of the Royal Dockyards but I am sure the three Ministers concerned will agree that if there is anything that needs improvement in the Admiralty service it is the home dockyards.
Much good result could materialise to the Admiralty and the country if improvements were to continue to be made. I claim a little credit for having kept those improvements going when I was the Civil Lord. Members of the present Government will agree that when they were in opposition they certainly lost no chance of impressing upon myself and upon my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the desirability of carrying out this work.
There now appears to be some kind of economy move. But if economies are to be brought about in one way or another, I object very strongly to their having to be borne by those who should not be called upon to bear them. This postponement—for it must be a postponement and not an abandonment—of new works on married quarters, on naval establishments and in dockyards is something which is hitting the man of the lower deck and the civilian working in the dockyard more than anybody else.
Does this "moratorium" on major new works next year mean that the Civil Lord will not do anything for naval air stations other than the work that was left by the Labour Government? I think it will be agreed that the only good thing we have at the naval air stations are the married quarters which were provided by the Labour Government. Almost every station has the comfort of these married quarters, but most of the personnel accommodation was rushed up in the early part of the war and today it badly needs modernising. We had a programme of modernisation in hand and if I had remained at my old post I would have fought as hard as I


could for the continuation of that programme.
Another important point is the provision of married quarters in home ports, under Vote 15. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was one of those who felt that we ought to have got on with that job some time ago. As a result of the obvious wishes of the House the Labour Government set up a working party to go into that question. The party reported some time ago. I am not complaining if that report has not been completely studied and if decisions have not yet been reached; but I should like to know from the Civil Lord whether the Government have reached any decision. If they have not, will he be good enough to let interested Members know when they do arrive at a decision on the provision of married quarters in home ports under that Vote?
I am bound to say—and I shall go on saying it—that if, next year, the Civil Lord comes to the House with no provision at all for new works for the barracks, no provision for major new works for the dockyards and no provision of married quarters, the Navy Estimates will not receive that healthy reception which they usually have from this side of the House. I shall certainly watch this question very closely.
If I may offer a word of advice to the Civil Lord, I would ask him to make certain next year when the works services come up before the Finance Committee and the Board that the good work done by the Labour Government up to 1951 will not be retarded as a result of the return of a Conservative Government and the appointment of the hon. Gentleman as Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

3.55 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) has raised a number of points and I am not quite certain whether I shall be absolutely in order in dealing with one or two of them because I do not think the relevant Votes are on the Order Paper.

Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask, Sir, whether we are having a general discussion on Vote A, in which case I take it it would be in order for the hon. Member to reply to the points made?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I understood we were having a general discussion on Vote A at the moment.

Mr. Digby: Vote 4, for instance, is not on the Order Paper and some of the points raised were really related to that Vote. I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Stepney, first of all, that though it is quite true there are to be 18 fewer dental officers that is only due to difficulties of recruiting. As to Admiralty constabulary, the figures in last year's Estimate turned out to be very optimistic as regards recruiting and, in fact, they were not anything like realised. Therefore, the difference in the Estimate for the two years is again more apparent than real.
The problem of providing technicians is still difficult, as the hon. Member for Stepney will remember very well from his six years of office. But we are doing our best to overcome it and we hope very much that the position will improve and that schemes we wish to carry out will no longer be held up because of this difficulty.
The hon Member for Stepney spoke about skilled labour in the dockyards. It is true there is a shortage of craftsmen but, as I think he knows, a dilution agreement for shipwrights has been negotiated at Portsmouth, as a result of which 110 extra dilutees have been found. The union concerned is considering whether it is possible to extend this dilution agreement to other ports.
The hon. Member referred to Vote 10 and married quarters. Of course, any Civil Lord of the Admiralty would like to have as large a Vote 10 as possible. I am just as fully aware as is the hon. Member of the need for a large Vote under this head because the Navy goes back a very long way. We therefore have need for new accommodation because much of the existing accommodation dates back to the days of Nelson.
Nevertheless, in the present financial position of the country our total Vote has to be subject to the obvious limitations of the total defence expenditure of the country. We have to take account of the limitation of the total works capacity of the country, so that the work planned can actually be carried out—which has not been a significant feature of the past. We have also to take our share with the other


Service Departments, having regard to the present international situation and the need to look after the teeth of the fighting Services, for instance, in such matters as airfields and the radar network.
It is significant that previous programmes have tended to fall short of the plans laid down in the Estimates. When the hon. Member draws a sharp distinction between new work and "continuation services," as they are called, he has to remember that a lot of those continuation services have been started only in name and that only the foundations may have been laid. A very large number of projects which were new works last year have hardly got under way at all, and that is why there will be very heavy expenditure on them in the coming year.
The reasons why they have gone rather slowly include difficulties over steel, but I very much hope that the steel allocation system which has been introduced will help to overcome those difficulties. I should remind the hon. Member that his party were, after all, in office for six years and that they never once had as large a Vote 10 as we have this year. The Vote is up by nearly £2 million gross on anything that he ever had.

Mr. W. J. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman carries on with this policy of providing nothing for major new works, it will soon be down and we shall be in the state we were in before the war.

Mr. Digby: We shall be able to look after that. In point of fact, owing to the national position, we have had to make some reduction on the money we would like to have spent. We are, therefore, not spending quite as much as we should have liked under some headings.
In his speech in the main Estimates debate the hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I am afraid I cannot answer all of them now. He talked about various aspects of Vote 10 work and referred, for example, to accommodation. Here, we are spending this year—despite the changes we have had to make—£4.9 million per head on shore-based personnel, a sum which compares favourably with what was formerly spent—

Mr. Edwards: Did the hon. Gentleman say, "£4.9 million per head"?

Mr. Digby: I beg pardon. I meant £4.9 per head.
On the question of married quarters, we are doing everything we can to get over delays which have been apparent in this field. For abroad and Northern Ireland, our programme under Vote 10 is £442,000, plus £30,000 for remedial road measures to housing at Rosyth.

Mr. Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me whether any schemes which were in projection, and were left behind at the Admiralty when the Labour Government went out, have been cancelled, such as the Singapore married quarters scheme?

Mr. Digby: The position is exactly the same. We are going on with Vote 10 schemes there. There are one or two projected schemes that it has not been possible to go on with, for example, in Malta, but with the Singapore scheme there has been no change—it remains intact.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for major works in the Royal Dockyards, and I certainly agree with him. When I went to Devonport and found that no major new work had been got on with since the end of the war, I felt that need very keenly. I am glad to say that three schemes there, apart from the barracks, are either in progress or are about to be progressed during the coming year.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how new works are to be started in Devonport Dockyard when, on page 152 of the Estimates, it states that nothing is to be spent on new works?

Mr. Digby: Perhaps I should explain that continuation services are those which have technically begun. As I have already explained—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the time—it often means that very little except the plans has been achieved. What we are interested in is the actual bricks and mortar, and not the plans for the project in question.
I must now say a word about the airfields. It has been necessary to improve naval airfields to take the heavier and faster types of aircraft which are coming along, and make them thoroughly serviceable for that purpose, and it has been


necessary to spend a little more this year in that direction.
Now for a word on Vote 15, under which we provide many of the married quarters that are required in this country. Here, again, there have been delays, but in actual fact this year we are to make 750 new starts, compared with 400 provided for last year. The starts will not be able to take place, unfortunately, at such an early stage in the year, but everything possible is being done to speed up the work. To-morrow a small party will be leaving by air to go round some of the naval air stations in this country to settle the question of sites, which has been holding up the building of these married quarters. In that way we hope to avoid some of the obstacles and to make a better start.
The Report of the Committee on Married Quarters in the Home Ports is an entirely internal Admiralty report. I do not think there has been any question of its being published, nor would it be suitable to publish it. I cannot be expected, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me, to say very much about this matter, but I can assure him that it is receiving the fullest consideration and that, if it is decided to act on it, we shall get on with the job as soon as we can.
The difficulty for the time being is that our hands are rather full with the programme which we have already in hand and which is subject to certain difficulties, such as those of site and of technicians—draughtsmen and so on—to prepare the plans and to get on with the work. I assure the House that we are doing all we can in this direction.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I want to say a few words on Vote 10, because the hon. Gentleman's reply on the subject does not seem to be clear. In his defence against the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) the hon. Gentleman claimed that Vote 10 was larger than ever before, but if we look at some of the sums voted under various items we will see that they are probably lower than ever before. In some cases they are nonexistent, and some of us are very much concerned about the matter.
I would refer, first of all, to the question on which I interrupted the hon. Gentleman, namely, Vote 10, Item (g), on page 152. I understood him to say that some new works were to be started, presumably out of money which is now being voted for the continuance of works started in previous years, but as far as I can read these Estimates I do not think there is any doubt that the Admiralty are not providing any money this year for any new works in relation to workshops or roadways in the dockyards.
That is what I understand to be the situation and, if that is so, I think it is a very serious one and it is also a reflection on the policy of the Admiralty. At the time of the debate on the Navy Estimates some of us on this side of the House referred to what had been said in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. I quite understand that the normal procedure is that the answers to the general recommendations made by that Select Committee have to be made to the Select Committee; but when I spoke in the debate I quoted several remarks made in evidence which was given to the Select Committee, which did not refer directly to the recommendations put forward but gave the views of the trade unions and the Admiral Superintendent of Devonport Dockyard about this subject in Vote 10.
The evidence given by the Admiral Superintendent and the trade unions was that in their view money spent on Vote 10 was one of the most important matters to which the Admiralty should apply their minds, and they suggested that very much more money should be spent under Vote 10 on the modernisation of workshops and the bringing up to date of the roads. The effect of the evidence given by the Admiral Superintendent was that more could be done to increase productivity in the dockyards by expenditure under this head than by any other means.
When evidence is given by one of the leading authorities on the matter it is very surprising, that when we come to look at the actual money to be spent this year we find that not one penny is provided for new works, for the modernisation of workshops or for new roadways in dockyards. That is a situation on which the trade unions and the Admiral


Superintendent had comments to make when the Select Committee was taking its evidence. The Admiralty should really take seriously what has been said for many years on this subject. One of the main complaints has been that not enough money has been spent. A considerable amount was spent last year, though not as much as we should have liked. But this year, when we are supposed to be considering how to increase productivity in the yards, not one penny is to be spent under this Vote.
That is a very serious matter and it is one which would be regarded as such by those who have any experience of the dockyards and have studied the matter of how we can improve the output and the general conditions in the dockyards. It is also a question that affects recruitment and the intake of apprentices. Some of the dockyards are in a shocking condition the workshops are really not fit to work in. That is not merely the evidence of the trade unions, but evidence given by the Admiral Superintendent himself. We did not have an answer during the Estimates debate. It seems to be the fashion with these debates that questions which are raised by dockyard Members are not answered, and now we are told that they will not be answered today. The Civil Lord said he could not answer the questions which were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney today.

Mr. Digby: I was referring to the questions which were put in the Estimates debate. I did not say I would not answer the questions of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards).

Mr. Foot: I apologise if I am wrong. It seemed to me that it was being said that these matters should not be answered on this occasion. The main point is that not one penny is being spent this year by, the Admiralty on new works in the dockyards and I say that that is a policy in defiance of all the advice which they have received through the medium of the Select Committee with regard to Vote 10.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to make a few comments on the issue which has been raised by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards). We have had from the Civil Lord his explanation of what he is

doing this year. What we should like to have from the First Lord is a statement on his policy in this matter. I should like to bring the issue to as sharp a focus as I can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney was a perpetual nuisance on the Board of the Admiralty in his attempts to get better conditions for naval ratings both in relation to barracks and new houses, and the new Civil Lord will have to live up to that example. Sometimes we thought that the hon. Member for Stepney was boring us with his perpetual demand for more money; but that is the only way to get money out of the Board of Admiralty. As the Civil Lord has no doubt discovered, when the Admiralty gets more money it still wants to spend that money on something else.
The issue in these Estimates is that the Civil Lord says he has to have regard to our financial position. That was the phrase he used. He has £78 million more in these Estimates than my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney, and the ex-First Lord and I had last year; but not a penny more is being spent on married quarters or to improve conditions in barracks. Indeed, less is being spent. Now the Civil Lord says, "Well, for my share of it I have £2 million more under Vote 10," but he is actually spending less on the provision of married quarters than was spent last year, although he has more money under his control.
That is really an unsatisfactory position. I understand the position to be that married quarters at home were started in comparatively large numbers by the late Government in or before last year's Estimates. As I understand, the Civil Lord is not proposing to start a single new house this year over and above the programme which is already going ahead and which was laid down by the last Government.

Mr. Digby: No; I explained that we are starting 750 houses instead of 400.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Civil Lord knows, I am discussing Vote 10, which is a Vote under his control.
I want to get the position exactly right. As I understand, there are no new married quarters to be started this year on any air station or any barracks in the country. According to the explanatory note, what


he is doing is to continue the work on 185 married quarters which were begun but not completed before 1st April, 1952.
I should like to ask the First Lord what is his policy in this matter. He can coast along this year on the achievements of his predecessor. Let him finish those houses by all means and let us hope that we can get as many ratings as possible living in them; but if we are to have a reasonable housing programme for the Services the Admiralty should be backing the Civil Lord in getting a start on some fresh houses this year.
If we look at page 155 of the Estimate, which deals with the provision of married quarters abroad, we see that the figure shown is for 204 married quarters begun but not completed before 1st April, 1952; but I cannot see that provision is made for the commencement of a single new married quarters this year. I think there was common action on this in the last Parliament and I think there should be in this one. I believe that this has been slipped past the Civil Lord.

Mr. Digby: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: If not, he has not done his duty by the sailor, because he should have insisted on getting a programme for new houses this year, under this Vote. That is his job, and I suggest to him that we shall expect to see a much better showing than this when the Estimates come up again next year.
What is the problem with which we have been dealing in the Admiralty for so many years? It is the difficulty of persuading wives to allow men to sign on again. Is this not the problem with which we have been faced, not only in the Admiralty but also in the Air Force and other Services—that the women will not allow their husbands to sign on again because they want to be near them? The only way they can be near them is by the provision of married quarters in some of the isolated stations, some of which are set on the most windy heaths, miles from the nearest market town. The only solution is to build houses for them. Some of the air stations are no doubt in more delectable spots, like that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at St. Ives, but apart from such as those, many of the air stations are not to be found in the most desirable places.
How can we encourage recruiting unless we take such steps, especially now that we have the money available? We have it this year; goodness knows what will happen next year or the year after or the year after that. If there is a reduced Vote next year, presumably we shall be hearing that there is no money with which to do the job; but this year, we have the money. The Minister of Local Government and Housing is going on with a remarkable new housing programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear it; but housing Service men—and let us have some more cheers here—is just as important as housing anybody else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They have families, and they need houses in which to live. That is why I feel the Civil Lord has not taken advantage of the fair wind this year. He should have staked a claim by starting new married quarters this year.
Take the case of Malta, for instance. In Malta there is a large number of unemployed and there is plenty of building material, as anybody who has been there knows. What is the reason for stopping that scheme? I do not know. There can be no shortage of labour or materials, if I understand the position correctly. Why cannot we have an explanation of that decision?
Look at the details of these Votes Last year, under Vote 10, £135,000 was spent on married quarters. This year £172,000 is to be spent. The progress which is being made on new schemes is to have spent on it only an additional £40,000. With great respect, that seems to me to be far too little if progress is to be made as quickly as it ought to be made.
Look at the next heading, "Accommodation for Personnel." This situation is bad—and I say this advisedly to the Civil Lord. He will have seen Plymouth Barracks and those at Devonport, Portsmouth and Chatham and such places as that, and he knows the accommodation from which some of us have suffered. If my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) were here he would make a most pathetic speech about his experiences in Portsmouth barracks. But whereas last year a total of £587,000 was spent on this accommodation, this year, without starting any new work, they are planning to


spend only £384,000 on continuing the work started under the regimé of my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney.
Again, look at the position abroad. I will not worry the House with details, but the problem of providing married quarters abroad is one which we face time after time—and, goodness knows, it is an important issue. It is an essential feature of our programme if we are to have satisfactory recruiting. Yet here the Government propose to spend 50 per cent. less on the provision of married quarters this year than was spent last year—and that is quite apart from not starting any new schemes. They are to spend 50 per cent. less on existing schemes than was spent last year.
We all like the Civil Lord and we all wish him well in his job, and I am sorry to have to utter these criticisms at the outset, but these are the Estimates for the coming year and we must examine them. There is still time to put the matter right and certainly there is time for the hon. Gentleman's reputation to be redeemed. So far as I can see, what is being done is to include everything under Vote 15, where 750 new married quarters are being started this year. But that Vote was an addition to Vote 10, and one is not a substitute for the other. Vote 15 was something which was conceded by the Government of the day under considerable pressure—and there is no need to give away any secrets—to give something more.
I hope the First Lord will not say, "We are putting it all into Vote 15, so it does not matter about Vote 10." That would be a false juxtaposition; for Vote 15 is intended to be an addition to what is done under Vote 10. I am delighted that the Government are starting 750 new married quarters under Vote 15, but that does not make the case for starting a large number under Vote 10 one bit weaker. The hon. Gentleman should have used the additional money which is included in Vote 10 to build additional married quarters and to improve the standard of some of these barracks, which, as we know, have been in existence almost since the days of Napoleon.
We should seek to go ahead so that we can say to men coming into the Service, "Here you have decent conditions under which to live while you are ashore

and we will see that you have the opportunity, if you sign on, of making certain that your wife lives in more reasonable conditions near to you."
This is not a party matter: it is a vital matter to the future recruitment of the Navy, and that is why I pressed the First Lord to tell us what is his policy in this matter. Can we look for a substantial increase in these two items in the Estimates next year, and will the First Lord pay particular attention to ensuring that married quarters and conditions for Service men on the lower deck are brought up to the required standard, not by putting the work into Vote 15, which is temporary, but by putting it into Vote 10, which is his continuing authority and which he will always have under his control?

4.25 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: I hope that hon. Members will not think I am intruding into this short debate if I ask one or two questions, but last week some of us opposed the suggestion that Coastal Command should go back to the Royal Navy—and I am glad that that has been settled, I hope once and for all—and we are interested in what the Civil Lord has to say about airfields for the Navy's air arm. Many of us who are interested in these matters feel that the future of the Royal Navy to some extent lies in the strength of its Air Arm, and we should like to hear a little more about the expansion and renovation of airfields.
Is it proposed to build new airfields? I should like to make this point: if we are to do that, it means the use of more good agricultural land. We should bear in mind that there are many existing airfields in the country with runways already laid down. I do not suggest that the buildings are satisfactory; if they were satellite airfields in the war the buildings will be far from satisfactory, but by working on the buildings and by renovating the runways much public money could be saved. I hope that the Civil Lord will give us more information on this point because many of us realised only quite recently that the Navy's air arm is at a low strength and that insufficient attention has been paid to it, not only by the Admiralty, but by the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) complained about the lack of action over married quarters, but his Government had six years in which to get busy.

Mr. Callaghan: What we are complaining about is that the programme which had been started is not being continued to the same degree, nor are new programmes being started.

Air Commodore Harvey: I shall wait to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about that. It may be that it is better to go ahead with the programme which has been started before starting new schemes. I agree that we should all like to see more married quarters built. I should be most grateful if the Civil Lord would tell us something more about the expansion of airfields for the air arm. This is important not only to the Navy; it is important to the country that we should know that we have a modern, well-equipped naval air arm.

Orders of the Day — NAVY LIST (OFFICER'S REMOVAL)

4.29 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I want to raise the question of Mr. E. P. Young. Last Wednesday my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) asked the First Lord, in a Question, why Mr. Young's name had been removed from the Navy List, and the First Lord gave an answer. I want to develop the matter rather further than it could be developed in Question and answer.
What is the story? The story, so I understand, is that on 6th February Mr. Young received a letter from an Admiralty clerk stating that he was to be removed from the Navy List. He wrote back saying that he was somewhat surprised to hear this, as it was the first intimation he had been given that his name was to be removed. On 14th February he received a letter from the Secretary to the Admiralty saying:
Your political activities in recent years are not in keeping with the conduct expected of a naval officer.
I would ask the House to note that it referred to "political activities." On 1st March he received a further letter stating:

Owing to your political affiliations and activities my Lords will have no further use for your services. My Lords have refrained from severing your connection with the Navy for as long as possible.
Those, are, briefly, the facts of the situation.
Let me say, before going any further, that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House dissociate ourselves completely from the views of Mr. Young. I am not speaking now because I am in agreement with his views; that is not the point at all. I think that it can be said that we know more about Mr. Young than hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, Mr. Young was at one time a member of the Labour Party, and he was expelled from the party; and we have every reason for thinking that we were right in so doing. But that is not the point. The point is that the Government in this case are taking action designed as far possible to limit the free speech of a British subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, designed to limit the power of that British subject to make his views heard with effect.
I cannot understand the position of the First Lord. He says that Mr. Young's views are repugnant to the Royal Navy, and so the Admiralty must not be associated with them. But surely the Admiralty is not associated with all the views expressed by all retired naval officers? After all, there are one or two naval officers on the other side of the House, who, from time to time, may question decisions made by the First Lord; and it cannot be said that all the speeches made by all retired naval officers, not only in this House but outside it, are always in accordance with the views of the Admiralty. I find it very hard to believe they are.
In fact, retired naval officers have the right—or they have had up to now—to free speech, without its being assumed that the Admiralty is in any way associated with the views they express. I raise this question because, after all, the House of Commons is the traditional guardian of free speech, and we have a right to discuss any matter which is likely to curtail the freedom of speech of anyone in this country.
What is the position? What law has been broken? Has Mr. Young broken the law? If he has broken the law it is


quite open to the Law Officers of the Crown to see that Mr. Young is prosecuted for breaking it, but I can only suppose that he has not broken the law because no such prosecution has been made. The House may remember that Mr. Jorrocks said, "The law is a hass"—and it may be that Her Majesty's Government think the law is an ass in this case. If that is the view of hon. Members opposite, they should have brought in legislation to change the law, to make it possible for Mr. Young to be prosecuted—if they wish to do so. However, they do not take that action. Instead, they take what I am afraid I must describe as a mean, petty and vindictive action.
I am very surprised at this, because anybody less vindictive than the First Lord it would be difficult to imagine in this House, and I am very sorry that it should have to be him one attacks for action of this kind, rather than anybody else; but I do think that the action is open to the use of these various adjectives.
It is not only what I think. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, "Here is an hon. Member opposite taking these views, but we can disregard his views; they do not matter very much, for he is prejudiced in this case." Let us take a great supporter of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the "Daily Express," a paper with which I am not always in full agreement. The "Daily Express," in a leading article, has said:
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, the First Lord of the Admiralty, has acted foolishly in stripping Commander Edgar Young of his naval title. Mr. Young has not been harmed by this action. He has been helped. He has been elevated to an importance he does not merit. He has been promoted to martyrdom. The only harm done is to Britain. The harm which comes from singling out a man and punishing him not because he has done injury to the State—or, indeed, ever did do injury to the State. But because he holds political convictions with which the States does not agree.
I think that that is a very fair summary of the situation.
Here is a man with whose views the Government do not agree. The Government cannot find that, in expressing those views, he has broken the law. The Government cannot feel able to bring in a law so as to make him liable to prosecution; they therefore do the only thing they can think of—remove his name from

the Navy List to show that they dissociate themselves from his views.
For hundreds of years the British people have fought for freedom of speech. They fought for it first against their rulers, in order to obtain it; and when they had obtained it, they fought for it against foreigners, who were going to try to take it away from them. In that second fight the Royal Navy has played a glorious and, indeed, a decisive part, for had it not been for the Navy's actions that freedom might have been taken away from us. I hope that the First Lord will not proceed in this action, for by doing so, by trying to make the Royal Navy into an instrument of attack upon free speech, he is, in fact, doing the Navy a very grave disservice.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to support the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). Like my right hon. Friend, I have no personal knowledge of ex-Commander Young at all, except that he used to be an indefatigable letter writer to the columns of the paper which I edited for a considerable time; and, far from agreeing with ex-Commander Young I usually disagreed with his point of view, especially during the war, although, being a little more tolerant than the present Government, I allowed him to express his opinions in his own way.
We have here a very remarkable anomaly. An ex-commander, who becomes a Communist, may be removed from the Navy List; but if a Communist is in the Navy he cannot be removed from the Navy. [An HON. MEMBER: "He can."] Well, he can, but how? I have repeatedly put this question to the Service Ministers. Is the fact that a man is a Communist a disqualification for his being in the Navy or in the Air Force or in the Army? The fact is that it is not a crime for a man in the Army or the Navy or the Air Force to have Communist sympathies or even Communist membership.
If this action is regarded from the point of view of security, we find that here is an ex-commander who, apparently for security reasons, is removed from the Navy List; but, according to the present ruling in the Navy, a Communist may be in any ship, in the latest aircraft carrier;


a Communist may be in a submarine, a Communist may have access to any amount of secret information, and know more about our secret weapons than even the First Lord of the Admiralty—and he cannot be thrown out. We actually conscript Communists for the Navy. Here is surely an anomalous situation. If we are to clear out Communists from the Navy List, how do we defend keeping them in the Navy?
I submit that my right hon. Friend, who takes an entirely different view from ex-Commander Young, as we all do on these benches, has proved his case in stating that this is a petty, mean and vindictive action—the persecution of a gentleman who happens to hold critical views of the policy of the Government. I know prominent members of the Conservative Party in my own County of Ayrshire who are on the Navy List, some of whom are very prominent in public life, who certainly take a different point of view from myself. For example, the present Convenor of the Ayrshire County Council and the ex-chairman of the county council are both on the Navy List, but they are allowed to hold very strong political opinions. I say that ex-Commander Young cannot be accused of offending against security, and that if the Government cannot hold their own against him it is a very poor outlook for the country.
We have been told that members of the Services are non-party, but if there is to be discrimination, and if a man who is accused of being Left Wing or Communist can have his name removed from the Navy List, what about the extreme Right Wing of the Tory Party? We have had cases of people connected with Fascist organisations. Is the same treatment to be meted out to them? If not, the Government must abandon the claim that we are a free democratic people and that we have regard for the principle of free speech in our public life.

4.42 p.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I had no intention of speaking this afternoon, but having heard the two last speeches about Mr. Young, the Communist, I must say that I agree to a very large extent with what the hon. Gentleman opposite said. I have discussed this at very great length with

a number of naval officers, and, although I dislike agreeing with the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), there may come a day when he and some of his friends—the Bevanites, or whatever they are called—are in power, and I fear for the day when I, as a brigadier holding Tory views, may cease to be entitled to hold my rank.
I hope that today the First Lord will give us some better reason for taking away this officer's rank than that he is a Communist. I think it is well known in the House that my views are more anti-Communist than almost anybody else's, but I fear for the day when the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South, and his friends may be in power, when I may lose my own rank.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), I had no intention of intervening in this debate had it not been for the last three speeches, which have now made thoroughly confused an issue I had thought quite clear, and I should like the First Lord to clear it up. As I understood the position, there was never any question of restricting Mr. Young's freedom of speech. All that the removal of his name from the list of retired naval officers meant was that he could no longer express views thoroughly repugnant, I think, to everybody in the House under the title "Commander, R.N. (Retd.)."
In precisely the same way, having been expelled from the Labour Party—which I did not know until the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) mentioned it a few minutes ago—Mr. Young was equally unable to express views which could be regarded as having any support of the Labour Party of those days.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not the position, is it? Surely the hon. Gentleman is not arguing that a man whose name is on the Navy List, and who expresses views, is expressing the political views of the Admiralty? The analogy with the Labour Party is quite false. A man who is a member of the Labour Party expresses Labour Party views. When he is an officer of the Royal Navy he is entitled to express any views he likes.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I am only asking for information. As I understood, it was felt undesirable that Mr. Young should continue to express views totally repugnant both to members of Her Majesty's Forces and to hon. Members of this House while he was calling himself "Commander, R.N. (Retd.)." What views he likes to express and what speaking engagements he likes to undertake as "Mr. Young," without any association whatever with the Navy, seems to be quite immaterial, so I cannot see how any hon. Gentleman opposite can argue that there was any restriction on Mr. Young's freedom of speech.

Mr. Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how he thinks this decision is made about the views that are supposed to be repugnant to the Royal Navy? How is the matter decided? Is a Gallup Poll to be taken? How is it to be determined what views are to be subject to this procedure?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: If Mr. Young is, or has been, a member of the Communist Party, and if he expresses views which are well known to be in line with the Communist Party views, I should have thought that on almost every ground it would be highly undesirable that he should continue to express those views while calling himself on any poster "Commander R.N. (Retd.)." I should have thought that that was common sense.
This issue now seems to have become thoroughly confused, and various hon. Members appear to think that freedom of speech is involved. I must say that I cannot myself see that it is in any way involved. Mr. Young's future writings, speechmaking and public engagements are in no way restricted. I do, however, ask the First Lord to clear up the position.

4.46 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): I must say at once that I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has raised this subject on the Report stage of these Estimates. As he himself said it is much easier to argue the matter at greater length on an occasion like this than during Question time in the House. This is a question of principle, and he is perfectly right to probe it on this occasion, which is conveniently afforded to him so swiftly after last week's Parliamentary Question.
Officers have been removed from the active and retired lists before, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a political case, and, therefore, the House should examine it all the more closely. I can assure the House that the Board of Admiralty have taken into full recognition the fact that this is a question of principle and all that that involves. Against that must be set the activities of Mr. Young in the past under previous Governments, and his further activities since the present Government came into office.
Perhaps it might help the House if I briefly summarised Mr. Young's activities. Mr. Young assured me, through the papers of last Thursday morning, that he was not a member of the Communist Party. If that means that he has never signed the pledge of that party, of course I accept his word for it. Nor, indeed, on this occasion does it really worry the Board of Admiralty or myself in the least whether he is an actual member of the Communist Party or not. What worries us is what he has said and what he has done while holding the rank of a retired officer.
At his own request Mr. Young was placed on the retired list in 1934. He was not recalled to active service during the last war owing, apparently, so far as I can make out from the war-time Government files, to his political activities. This last decision seems to have been fully justified, because Mr. Young himself, in a speech in Edinburgh in 1940, when obviously referring to his position on the retired list of the Royal Navy, is reported as describing himself as "an ex-hired assassin," which is hardly complimentary to his former colleagues in the Service who were then loyally serving their country.
In the "Daily Worker" of the 10th of this month, I am informed that Mr. Young is Chairman of the Bulgarian Friendship Committee, a leading official of the British Roumanian Friendship Committee and the British Soviet Friendship Committee, a member of the Society for Cultural Relations with the U.S.S.R., and that he was head of the British delegation to the Congress for German and Soviet Friendship in Berlin in 1949. He was also a regular visitor to the Soviet satellite States and a regular speaker at a number of pro-Russian demonstrations in this country.
All this, Mr. Young, so far as I know, and speaking apart from the Admiralty, is entitled to do as a citizen of this country, and the action of the Board of Admiralty in removing his name from the retired list of officers does not—and I stress this point because it was raised by the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members in this debate—put any curb whatsoever on his political activities or upon his freedom of speech.
In fact, if he was ever halted in his words by the fact that he was on the retired list of the Royal Navy, he is even freer now to say what he wishes to say in the future. It merely means that his speeches against the policy of his own country—and he has been just as bitter against those whom he has called Messrs. Attlee, Bevin and Cripps as against members of my own party—do not have the additional weight of coming from a naval officer, as this is particularly misleading to the uninstructed members of his audiences behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not quite clear about this. Are his speeches considered to be worse than those of Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, and was he removed for a long period from the Navy List? I do not actually know for how long he was removed.

Mr. Thomas: So far as I know, Admiral Sir Barry Domvile is making no speeches at all at the moment. He is aged and has been for some time in retirement in the country.

Mr. Dugdale: My point is that at one time, when he was a retired officer, he did make such speeches and was associated with certain views. Was his name at that time removed from the Navy List?

Mr. Thomas: His name was not removed from the Navy List at that time or any other time. I cannot be responsible today for the decision of past Administrations.

Mr. Callaghan: No one is asking the right hon. Gentleman to take responsibility for the decisions of the Administration of which he was a member from 1940 to 1945. What we do ask him is why is he breaking with the precedent that was then established?

Mr. Thomas: The Government was then a National Coalition Government.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman himself was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty.

Mr. Thomas: For part of the time of the Domvile case, yes. The decision was not to take the name of Sir Barry Domvile off the Navy List at that time, and had I been there myself all the time I might have wished to take a different decision. But on this occasion and at this time I claim that we are right and justified in removing the name of Mr. Young from the retired list of the Royal Navy. It is not the first time that such a thing has been done. It has been done in respect of the active list for political reasons before.

Mr. Callaghan: The active list?

Mr. Thomas: I stress the active list. We have not been I consider mean, petty or vindictive. The Board of Admiralty could have taken away Mr. Young's retired pay. He served with distinction in his early years in the Royal Navy and we took this into consideration. Therefore, I consider that the adjectives, "mean, petty and vindictive" are not justified so far as the attitude of the Admiralty about Mr. Young is concerned.
I hope that the House will be practical in this matter. What weighed with the Admiralty, particularly at this time, in dealing with this case is that, with the agreement of the leaders of all the political parties at Westminster, we are today building up a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to which, incidentally, Mr. Young is bitterly opposed, and we are also uniting the Commonwealth for the preservation of peace by deterring any would-be aggressor.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that any member on the retired list who opposes the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the building up of the Commonwealth organisation is in danger of being removed from the Navy List? If the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that, why does he mention it?

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that a number of very distinguished retired admirals have opposed very bitterly the appointment of a Supreme


American Commander, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with that?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that argument really holds today. Certainly, the Prime Minister had always been one of the strongest supporters of what has now come to be called N.A.T.O. What I am saying is this: what is the effect on the nations building up the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation when they see Mr. Young speaking as a naval officer and making the speeches which he has been making of late—activities which have increased since the present Government came into power? He gave evidence in the Communist trial last month in Paris and published articles at the end of last year in the organ of the Communist-controlled Australian Waterside Workers Federation and is, therefore, becoming an increasing embarrassment to our embassies abroad, both outside and inside the Iron Curtain, particularly as he speaks and writes as a naval officer. The late Mr. Bevin warned the embassies to be circumspect in dealing with this gentleman in the past, and the need for that has grown more vital still.

Mr. Percy Wells: The name of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin has been mentioned. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Mr. Bevin never suggested that Mr. Young should be struck off the retired list?

Mr. Thomas: The decision does not rest with the Foreign Office, but is in the hands of the Board of Admiralty. The Board of Admiralty have thought it necessary to strengthen the hands of our embassies abroad and also of the United Kingdom representatives in the Commonwealth by making it possible now to say that Mr. Young has no right to speak as a naval officer.
I have been reproved, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by the "Daily Express" for giving Mr. Young more publicity than he deserves, but all I can say is that, on the whole, the more publicity we can give to the fact that Mr. Young has been removed from the retired list of the Royal Navy—the more publicity at home and abroad—the better I shall be pleased and the better pleased will be the Board of Admiralty. We want to make it clear that in our opinion the time has come

to stop him borrowing the prestige of the Royal Navy to support his propaganda, and I am grateful to the House for giving me the further opportunity of making this statement today.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. If I have it, may I say that I think many of us on either side of the House feel far from happy at the reply to which we have just listened. What is the purpose of removing Commander Young from the Navy List? It is, as I understand, to ensure that when he describes himself as "Commander Young" his views shall not be believed to be those of officers serving in the Royal Navy or of most of the citizens of this country. I ask the First Lord this question: What happens if Mr. Young goes on describing himself as "Commander Young, Royal Navy, retired"?

Mr. Thomas: I can answer that question. We have no powers to stop him, but there is this difference: that when a foreign nation asks why these speeches are being made by a naval officer on the retired list, our representatives abroad and at home can say that his removal has taken place, which produces a very different effect on a foreign nation from what is happening at the present time.

Mr. Callaghan: When I asked that question, I thought I knew what the answer would be. The plain truth is that the Admiralty have no powers to stop this gentleman describing himself in his true features and name. He is a commander of the Royal Navy who has retired. No one can take that away from him. I believe that he retired as a lieutenant-commander and that he has been promoted to commander since, and, therefore, if anything is taken away from him he becomes a lieutenant-commander.

Brigadier Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in saying that nothing can take his rank away. If a man is dishonest, after a conviction, his rank can be taken away.

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I shall come to that point in a moment.
What does the First Lord think he has achieved, except a certain amount of publicity for Commander Young, about


whom I express no opinion because I do not know the gentleman and, as far as I know, I have never met him? The First Lord has also made the Admiralty look rather silly because the Admiralty has not dealt with the question of pay. Commander Young still receives his retired pay. When our embassies write to ask why this gentleman is describing himself as "Commander Young, R.N. (Retired)," presumably the First Lord will write back and say, "We have taken him off the Navy List, but we do not think the crime is as bad as all that and we are still paying his pension."
I now come to the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke). If Commander Young has committed a criminal offence, he should be fairly tried by the Admiralty. A well-known disciplinary code is laid down. He can have a court-martial or a disciplinary court, or he can be invited to make representations. There is a well-known process, and every occupant of the Front Bench opposite knows what it is. What the First Lord has given way to is the political spleen of a few elderly retired naval officers in the Army and Navy Club.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I have always found the hon. Gentleman most helpful to the Navy in the past. He must not jump to the conclusion—I noticed the tendency in the Navy Estimates a few days ago—that those who followed him and his colleagues at the Admiralty have no opinions of their own. I assure him that they have very strong opinions. We reached this decision on our own opinions. There is no question of our having given way to elderly officers in military and naval clubs.

Mr. Callaghan: I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, and I assure him that I shall continue to be as helpful to the Navy in the future as I have been in the past. However, he is not being helpful to the Navy in doing this, and he is not being helpful to the cause of democracy in this country either. I take the greatest exception to the line which is being followed. There is no doubt where the complaint originated. The First Lord knows exactly the quarters in which originated the desire to take this gentleman's name off the Navy List.
There is one thing which the First Lord did not explain. If he has reached this conclusion today—he says it is his own conclusion, and I accept that—why did he take a different decision while he was a member of the Board of Admiralty at the time that Admiral Sir Barry Domvile was interned during the war? What are the different circumstances?

Mr. Thomas: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not a member of the Admiralty at that time. I gathered that he thought I was there from 1940 to 1945. I was there from 1943 to 1945. At no time was Admiral Sir Barry Domvile's case brought before the Board of Admiralty while I was a member of it.

Mr. Dugdale: Whether the right hon. Gentleman was or was not a member of the Board of Admiralty then, I do not know, but I do know that the present Prime Minister was Prime Minister then and was in charge of defence. Surely he would have been consulted and would have taken the same attitude?

Mr. Thomas: I think I am right in saying that the case of Admiral Sir Barry Domvile came before the Admiralty when my right hon. Friend had left it and had been succeeded by Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I am not trying to make party politics out of this.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that anybody thought the First Lord was making a reflection on Lord Alexander. I think Lord Alexander was right. Whatever any officer does, he should be allowed to remain on the Service list until he is convicted of some offence which has brought dishonour upon his Service. In such circumstances the Admiralty should, clearly, be free and entitled to remove him from the Navy List.
What I am complaining about is that no real investigation has taken place in this case. In spite of the procedure under the Naval Discipline Act and Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, no one has been given an opportunity of investigating the evidence upon which the Board of Admiralty has acted. The Admiralty have achieved no useful purpose by what they have done. This gentleman can continue to describe himself as "Commander Edgar Young, R.N. (Retired)," until the end of his life. The Admiralty have not achieved anything,


but have made themselves a laughing stock and have brought discredit to the cause of democracy.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On what Vote is Commander Young's pension carried?

Mr. Thomas: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it is Vote 13.

Mr. Benn: Vote 13 covers "Non-effective Services" and, as far as I can tell, makes no provision for anyone who has been struck off the retired list. Subhead A is "Retired pay, half pay and gratuities to officers of the Royal Navy," etc., and Subhead B is "Commutation of retired pay," etc. Might it be that in moving these Estimates the First Lord is asking the House to provide money for Commander Young?

Mr. Thomas: I took opinion as to the Vote to which Mr. Young's case related and I was assured that it came under Vote 13. I believe that the hon. Member will find that to be the case.

Mr. Benn: Will it not be difficult for the First Lord to get our embassies abroad to explain to those who inquire that he has just made a speech asking the House to provide payment for a man who is or was a commander of the Royal Navy, retired?

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported.

VOTE A. ADDITIONAL NUMBERS

That an additional number, not exceeding 5,500 Officers, Seamen, and Boys and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 1. PAY, &C., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

That a sum, not exceeding £49,842,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, &c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolutions agreed to.

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £19,457,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Civil Lord tell us what progress had been made with experiments in connection with uniform for seamen? Experiments were taking place to obviate the tiresome business of seamen having to put on their jumpers over their heads. It was a matter in which I was very interested. I believe that as a result of the experiments a new type of uniform has been tried out in the Home Fleet. I should like to know how near a conclusion the experiments are.

Mr. Digby: It is not possible to give any reply beyond saying that the matter is still under consideration. We are not yet in a position to give a final answer

Question put, and agreed to.

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,559,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I wish to ask a question about Greenwich Observatory. I have to declare an interest in this as I am now a tenant, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, not of the Observatory but of the Hospital. I saw the Observatory the other day and it seemed to me to be getting rather dilapidated. I wonder whether it is the responsibility of


the Admiralty or whether responsibility has been passed over to the Ministry of Works.

Mr. Digby: The responsibility is gradually being transferred to the Ministry of Works.

Question put, and agreed to.

VOTE 9. NAVAL ARMAMENTS

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £36,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of naval armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolution agreed to.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,579,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Digby: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to one or two points which were raised in the general debate but which I did not have an opportunity to answer.
The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said that the provision for the dockyards was less than it had ever been. That is not correct. In fact, it is nearly three times as much as in the year 1950–21. I assure the hon. Member that we understand the importance of spending money on the dockyards and that we shall bear this point in mind. In future years, we shall try to continue with three major schemes which are approved for Devonport Dockyard this year.

Mr. Foot: I genuinely do not understand the hon. Gentleman. He says that three times as much money is being spent on new work as before, but on page 152 of the Estimates in item (g) "Dockyards and Factories," the "New Works to be started in 1952–23"is nil.

How, therefore, can it be three times what it was in some previous period?

Mr. Digby: We are talking about the total expenditure. One has to look at Item (d) also and add the two together. The hon. Member spoke a lot about the new works started last year under Subhead B (g) but he omitted to tell the House that the provision was only for £20,000, which bears out my point that it is not the first year's expenditure, but the actual total expenditure, that counts.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), drew the attention of the House, rather unnecessarily, to the failure of the late Government to fulfil its programme. That was the real point behind what he said. He asked us to compare our Estimates this year with the Estimates for last year. What he did not say was that we got absolutely nowhere near to achieving the Estimates which were accepted last year.
In fact, on Vote 10 B the underspending was very considerable—no less than £1,700,000. The same thing applies to the married quarters under Vote 15, the underspending on which was altogether £1,350,000. It is quite easy to put a sum in the Estimates, but the difficulty is to achieve the total and to put up the buildings. We believe that it is necessary to concentrate our efforts on a realistic programme and to do everything we can to get it through.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) raised a point about airfields. I am sorry to see that he has now left the House. We are not, however, starting on the provision of totally new airfields. We are doing as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested and are improving the existing airfields, on which there has already been very considerable capital expenditure, not only on the existing runways but on buildings. We believe also that in this way we are doing what is best from the viewpoint of conserving good land for agriculture.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported,

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £15,106,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Orders of the Day — NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the Grants for Navy Services for the year.

[For details of Supplementary Estimate, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 873–4.]

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1952–53, AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

REPORT [10th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolution reported,
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 555,000 all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st March, 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: There is only one point that I want to raise, but it is one of some importance. I wish to repeat the question which I asked of the Secretary of State for War when the Estimates were presented, about the present position in regard to the .280 rifle. What we have been told in regard to that rifle is that we are undertaking experimental production. I do not know what that means or how much real production it entails.
I should like to repeat the question I asked: Are we, or are we not, going to tool up one of our serious major industrial units for the production of small arms? If not, it means that for the present, at any rate, we have abandoned

the whole project of introducing the .280 rifle. That is something of very great concern to the Army.
It is true that the Secretary of State replied to me on this issue. But what did he say? He began by saying:
Nobody on either side of the House would argue, for one moment, that the .280 rifle was not the best rifle in Europe or the world today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1952;, Vol. 497, c. 1206.]
He could not have put it more strongly than that. What concerns me is that he then went on, in the next two or three paragraphs of his speech, to give reasons—which sounded as if they were reasons—why nevertheless we could not go on with the production of that rifle; and therefore, that there was no prospect of actually putting it in the hands of the British infantry.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): It might be convenient if I were to intervene now. I did not state that there would be absolutely no production of the rifle. What I went on to say, if my memory serves me, was that to adopt that rifle as the universal rifle for the whole of the British Army, with the only production of rifles and ammunition centred in this country, would be a rash undertaking in view of our vulnerability to air attack.

Mr. Strachey: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman said that, and I was coming to it. It seemed to me a very serious point and one which, if it was seriously considered to make it impossible to introduce this new weapon, would have very wide repercussions on our general programme of armaments.
I have the right hon. Gentleman's words before me. He said that if we introduced this rifle to the British Army as its standard infantry weapon—and it seems to me that in the long run it is doing that or nothing, because the disadvantages of having two rifles in permanent use in the Army, with two sets of ammunition, would be very great indeed—we should be entirely dependent on our manufacture, not only of rifles, but of ammunition, because no other country, with the possible exception of Belgium, was likely to introduce it.
But is that a good reason for not going forward when the rifle is, admittedly—


this is something on which there is no difference between us—the best thing available in the world? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that even with the best will in the world it would take five or six years to re-equip the Army with this weapon. That may be so. It seems rather a pessimistic estimate, although to complete finally the re-equipment of the Army might, perhaps, be of that order of magnitude.
The right hon. Gentleman said that these were the danger years. But no one is suggesting that during these years we should dribble out the production of the new rifles unit by unit and have one battalion equipped with the new rifle and one with the old. Surely, the very most we would do, even for a temporary period, would be to re-equip one whole theatre—the Far East, for example, or the Near East, or Germany; and we would wait until we had sufficient production to do that. There is, of course a disadvantage in that, but it is a small one to weigh against the very great advantages of going forward.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to use the argument, which he associated with what I have just said, that if we were to do that we would not be floating, as it were, on a big pool of rifles, which is, I agree, of such importance in a major war. But is that really so? After all, no one suggests that even if we went into production with the new rifle, we should scrap our great stocks of the old rifle. For Home Guard and auxiliary purposes, which may be a very big user of rifles in a major war, there would still be this great stock of the old rifles, and in fact there would be more of them in so far as we would produce the new rifle and give it to various theatres for the Regular Forces. We should not diminish our total stock of rifles by going into production with the new one. We should increase it. Therefore, I cannot feel that that argument holds good.
Then the Secretary of State returned to this question of the production of the rifle and ammunition, and said that if we adopted them they would only be produced in this country, because no one else would adopt them. I should not have thought that that necessarily followed. It

would surely be possible to place contracts for the production of the rifle, and certainly of the ammunition, in Canada, for example. But even so, even if that were not done, it is a very serious suggestion that we cannot depend upon production in this island for any of our essential weapons.
If we were to adopt that argument, we should have to say that it was wrong to depend upon the Centurion tank because that was produced only in this island, or that we could not depend upon our new fighter aircraft because they were produced only in this island, or that we could not depend upon our anti-aircraft ammunition for the same reason. I do not think we can accept this argument that this island is so insecure that it is not a possible base for the production of our essential weapons. Therefore, I was made very uncomfortable by these arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. They sounded to me quite inadequate reasons for denying to the British infantry what he called the best rifle in Europe and the best rifle in the world today. I felt that these were excuses rather than reasons—and rather uncomfortable excuses at that.
It is a very serious matter, and especially serious because of one of the reasons which he gave. It is quite true that even if we went ahead with tooling up right away, it would be quite a long period before we should get any more rifles in any considerable quantity—something of the order of anything between 12 and 24 months. But surely that argument also cuts the other way. No doubt, this does not apply in the same way to rifles as it does to fighter aircraft, but if we make a fine new thing and then do nothing about it for long enough, it becomes obsolete by the time we get it. If we wait for years before we even start tooling up on the new rifle, do we not run the risk, even here, of losing all the advantage or some real part of it which the genius—I use that strong word purposely—of British inventors and designers has now given us?
It causes great concern that we get no adequate reasons, as it seems to us, for the denial to the British infantry of this new weapon. I cannot help feeling that it must in the end react upon their state of mind if this situation is adhered


to. I am not saying that it is correct, but it must create the impression in the mind of the infantryman himself that he is being denied a weapon for diplomatic reasons, and people feel—I think it is better to say it frankly—that he is being denied this weapon because of American objections and because we are supinely giving in to the very strongly expressed views of the American Government, and that because of those views and because we cannot obtain standardisation on the rifle, we have had to give the whole thing up altogether.
I cannot help feeling that this is the greatest pity. It is acting against some of the very best military and technical opinion. Unless the Secretary of State can tell us something this afternoon or on some future occasion to console and reassure us on this issue, we on this side of the House do not feel that we can let the matter lie and we shall feel obligated to press the Government very strongly on every appropriate occasion.

5.26 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I do not think anybody would question the assertion of the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), that the matter which we have been discussing is important. We all agree that it is. So far as I understood the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it amounted to the fact that there was no reason to suggest that we should scrap all the existing .303 S.M.L.E.'s but that we should go ahead with manufacturing the new rifle leaving the old type for the Home Guard and for other exigencies. That might be all right if the supply of the old type of rifle were adequate now. I very much doubt whether it is, because we want a much greater supply of rifles than are in use in order to be properly protected and prepared in the event of a war.
I think I am right in saying that at the end of the war a great many rifles in this country were disposed of in various ways. I am not particularly criticising the fact that some of them were, but a great number of them were disposed of, and I very much doubt whether today it is within the capabilities of industry to get our Forces sufficiently well equipped with a reserve of rifles of the present standard and at the same time to go ahead with producing the new type.
The right hon. Gentleman made some play with the possible effect that all this may have on the infantryman's mind. I honestly do not believe that the average infantryman will believe that this decision has been entirely a diplomatic one. I do not believe that he will think that. If I may, at the risk of boring the House, I should like to tell a story which I believe to be true. It was told to me about a regiment which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know very well. In the First World War this regiment, which consisted of horse cavalry, came on to a feature which they had to hold in a dismounted position. The attack was put in by the Germans, but the rifle fire of those men was sufficient to deter the attack.
After the war it so happened that the commanding officer of the regiment met the commanding officer of the German troops who had been attacking that position, and the German commander told him that the reason the attack was not proceeded with was that the rifle fire was so good that the Germans had thought there were automatic weapons on the position. At the risk of annoying every rifleman in the House, I would say that I think it is true that the standard of musketry was perhaps one of the weakest things in the Army of 1939, and certainly in war conditions it is difficult to get men to attain the highest standard of musketry.
If the decision is that we must defer the production of the .280 rifle—or, to give it its correct designation, I believe it is the 2,278—I believe that much greater concentration ought to be placed upon musketry in the infantry regiments. Certainly the standard of shooting used to be one of the things for which the British Army was renowned, but I am not certain whether that is true today.
I hope the House will forgive me if, not having joined in on the night operations on the earlier proceedings, I indulge in a small political exercise without troops this afternoon. In the debate on the last Army Estimates I tried to call attention to four subjects each beginning with the letter A. The emphasis which my right hon. Friend places on each of these subjects is important. The four are: armour, airborne, anti-aircraft and antitank.
So far as armour is concerned I am a little concerned at what appears in a Vote we are not discussing this afternoon, namely, the amount of fuel allowed for the training of men in armoured formations. It seems to me essential that when we are discussing these Estimates, and in particular talking on Vote A, and when we are discussing the number of men who can be called up, we should ensure that their time is not wasted. It is essential for armoured regiments, especially armoured car regiments, to have adequate fuel for training purposes. It should be allotted on the basis of the number of vehicles rather than on the number of men at any one station.
I will not deal with tanks because other hon. Members dealt with them in the earlier debate, but there is a strong case to be made for having an Army air arm just as the Navy has an air arm. I know, from having listened to the debate on the Air Estimates, that there are some hon. Members who have served in the R.A.F. who would not relish that suggestion strongly, but I should think that the case the Navy can make for having a Fleet Air Arm is similar to that which the Army can make for having an Army air arm.

Air Commodore Harvey: The Navy have not yet made out a case.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am quite prepared to believe that to the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend the Navy has not made a case for a fleet air arm, but the fact is that they made a case sufficiently well to have had a fleet air arm for a number of years. One reason why I think the Army might have an air arm is because, so far as tactical reconnaissance is concerned, it is essential that there should be a real knowledge of the military problems in the minds of the pilots who are flying them.
In addition, we have the problem of transporting airborne troops, particularly the Parachute Regiment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) said in the earlier debate, it is important that adequate transport should be available. Those who have been through a retreat know that there is nothing worse than to be dependent upon an outside organisation for transport.

Although we hope we shall neither have to attack nor retreat, it is something which my right hon. Friend must look into. I have talked with various senior officers in the past and I know that some of them who have reached important appointments in connection with the infantry were strongly of the view that every infantry battalion ought to be trained in an airborne role.
If that be so, it becomes even more important to ensure that there is a section of the Army devoted to the control of aircraft, the flying of aircraft and working from aircraft. We know that the Royal Regiment of Artillery had considerable experience with Austers in the late war, but that is not enough to cope with what I am visualising. We ought to aim at getting the entire Regular Army airborne in the long run. Of course it cannot be done in five minutes or five years, but the more we become air-minded in the Army the more strong the case becomes for an Army air arm.
It is important that proper research should be undertaken in order to find an adequate anti-tank weapon for airborne troops. There has been a good deal of discussion about the Napalm bomb. I see the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), sitting opposite and I know his views on the matter, but it is important that airborne troops in particular should be properly equipped with an anti-tank weapon. I believe that some modification to an existing launcher of a Napalm bomb may be the answer. It is a vile weapon, but modern war is vile and it is almost hypocritical for us to differentiate betwen weapons when the whole of war is so atrocious. Many arguments which people use against the Napalm bomb are really arguments against war as a method of settling anything—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Splendid.

Major Legge-Bourke: —but as long as people are prepared to apply war as a method, it is in the interests of ourselves and the men who do the fighting that we should equip them as adequately as possible.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask a question?

Major Legge-Bourke: Just one moment. It is vitally important that we


should equip our airborne troops, who often may be fighting in isolated positions away from the main body of our Forces, as effectively as we can. There is no doubt that one of the most deadly weapons against them will be the tank. Without disclosing any secrets, I hope my right hon. Friend will give us an assurance that this matter is being looked into and that everything possible will be done to ensure that our airborne troops are effectively armed against tanks.

Mr. Hughes: I quite understand the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which is perfectly logical, but could he say, since he is prepared to approve of the Napalm bomb, if we were to have war, would he be prepared also to approve of bacteriological warfare?

Major Legge-Bourke: I was discussing four subjects—armour, airborne, antiaircraft and anti-tank. That was not on my list. It is one of those weapons which comes in the same category as gas, in that if it is used there is a likelihood of it being just as inconvenient to the user as to the enemy against whom it is being used. That would be the main criterion in my mind in deciding whether or not to use it. The important thing is that we should win whatever war we found ourselves in as quickly as possible. I do not believe that there is any sense in not using a weapon which will hasten victory. It was for that reason I supported the use of the atom bomb.
I believe it has been decided that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. What I have said about airborne troops has some relevance here because it is perfectly obvious that airborne troops cannot take the heaviest type of tank about with them if they are using our existing type of aircraft. Somehow I do not see the Brabazon being used for carrying airborne troops.
It is probable, therefore, that in the airborne division the anti-tank weapon will rarely be the tank, but, from the point of view of our main body of troops, who will be fighting in the armoured divisions and in the infantry divisions, the decision has been taken, I believe, that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. I hope that is the right decision. After all, a tank costs £38,000, which is an immense burden. I do not profess to be sufficiently an expert on the military side to state

whether the decision is right or not, but I would remind the House of what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in an earlier debate—that one by one our weapons go out of use either because they have become too expensive or because they have become too unwieldy and it may be that tanks are moving in that direction.
I have a feeling that sooner or later we shall return to the view that the best weapon to use against tanks is a really effective anti-tank weapon, freely provided for use by the infantryman. I am prepared to agree that for the moment the decision which has been taken may be right, but as time goes on I believe what we should be seeking to do is to provide every infantryman, in particular, with a really effective, personal anti-tank weapon. As we continue the development of these appalling explosives, I believe we shall find that gradually it will be possible to produce a lighter and lighter weapon to fire a more and more effective projectile of some sort. That seems to me the line along which we should work.
Lastly, I want to say something about the Home Guard. My right hon. Friend gave the latest figures to the House—something over 30,000 men who have registered. In due course we want 175,000, which is the figure catered for in these Estimates. I believe there is not a sufficient awareness of this very important fact—that if we were to find ourselves in another war we should be in grave danger at the moment of being prepared to fight it only on the basis of our preparedness at the beginning of the last war.
Local authorities in particular—and I want to warn my right hon. Friend of this—are tending to take the line that what was good enough last time will be good enough again, and I beg and implore him to try to get over to local authorities in every way he can—and that is one of the reasons why I am making this speech—that if they are relying on last war methods and a last war state of readiness, as at 1939, in order to combat possible paratroop landings in East Anglia, then, although I hope they will live to be able to regret it, I doubt whether they will.
We should do everything we can to try to make local authorities aware of the


need for an immediate Home Guard as well as a Civil Defence and to impress upon their minds that it is just as important this time to have a Home Guard as it was last time to have gas masks. One of the reasons why gas masks were issued to the public in 1939 was in order to instil into everybody's mind the need for the defence of this country, and it is of vital importance that that spirit should be instilled into everybody today, and particularly into the leaders in the rural areas.
I mention local authorities for that reason—that, however good employers may be and however good their workers may be in coming forward for the Home Guard, if local authorities will take positive steps to encourage them to do so it will make just the difference that we need and it will see that my right hon. Friend's plans make sense.
At the moment, from what I can gather, we have a line drawn from Selsey Bill to the Wash, and those east of the line, where most are required, are fewer in number than those west of the line. If that is the case, something must be done very rapidly if my right hon. Friend's plans for the summer are to be capable of execution. My view is that my right hon. Friend must get together with the home secretary and see that there is no unnecessary competition between the Home Guard and the Civil Defence.
I shall detain the House no longer, and I am sorry to have delayed it for so long, but I hope some of the questions which I have asked will be valuable for my right hon. Friend to consider, even if he cannot answer all of them today. I can assure him that I shall go on until I see something more achieved than has been achieved over the last six years and that I shall draw attention to the balance between those four subjects beginning with the letter A. My feeling is that the balance is a little uneven in favour of armour, that nothing like sufficient attention has been given to airborne and certainly not sufficient attention to antitank. I hope my right hon. Friend will give these matters urgent attention.
I have only one observation to make on anti-aircraft, and it arises out of what my right hon. Friend said in his presentation of the Estimates. I believe there is a real danger in relying on equipment

which is so complicated that only about seven men out of every 10,000 can be trained to operate it. There is a tendency to do that at the moment. I believe that, as time goes on, we shall find guns ceasing to be the best method of stopping air raids. I hope we shall not have to put that to the test. While it is still necessary to use guns at the moment, I hope we shall not make them so complicated that not nearly enough men can be trained to operate the machinery and equipment which goes with them. That is a danger at the moment. May I thank the House for listening to me as long as they have, and may I hope that my right hon. Friend will give some attention to the points I have raised?

5.47 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was speaking more truth than he realised when he said that in the next war the Home Guard will be as essential as gas masks were in the last war. He seemed to have forgotten that gas masks were introduced and issued to the public not for military reasons at all, but to cover the Chamberlain sell-out at the time of Munich. They were issued in order to stampede the public into accepting selling Czechoslovakia down the river and, of course, the reason why the Home Guard Bill has been put on the Statute Book is because it happened to be in the Conservative Party programme. It meets no military need and, in fact, it is a colossal waste of money.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Whether or not he is correct in what he says about the introduction of gas masks, the fact remains that the enemy did not use gas against us—and let us hope that if we have a Home Guard he will not use paratroops, either.

Mr. Wigg: I, too, hope he will not, but the decision not to use gas was not taken because we issued gas masks. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said earlier, the enemy did not use gas because they thought it would not pay them to use it, and it had nothing to do with the issue of gas masks.
I want to say a word or two about the Army Estimates debate and the failure of the Secretary of State to answer questions. It appeared to us, when listening


to his speech, that he was dodging all the awkward ones, but when his speech is read, it becomes more and more apparent that he dodged every difficult question put to him and that he hid behind general statements which could not be checked. If we must have generalities from the right hon. Gentleman we ought to have a little more information so that we can check some of his statements.
As I understand it, he is doing all he can to save on the tail in order to sharpen the teeth. He gave us a figure of 10,000 men to indicate the saving which had been made during his short period in office. This is extremely promising, but we should be given an opportunity of checking what this 10,000 means, and we can only check it if we are told where these men are taken from. That is to say, we must be told from which arms of the Service these 10,000 men have been taken and where they are serving at present. Obviously, if he takes Smith, Brown, Jones and Robinson, doing clerical work at the War Office and put them into some headquarters where they will still be doing clerical work, that is not saving at all. It only constitutes a saving if those 10,000 are taken away and are serving in combatant units.

Mr. Head: The hon. Member is raising exactly the same point he raised last time—

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer it last time.

Mr. Head: I am afraid I gave almost the same answer as I shall give the hon. Member now. I stated, and it is absolutely correct, that 10,000 men have been taken out of the service and administrative units. There are no longer 10,000 vacancies. For me to give him a list of the places they came from, Austria, Europe, the Far East and so on, and of the units they came from, would mean that I would have to have more men in the tail to work it out. It is not fair to ask for such lists; 10,000 men are out of the tail, and I assure the hon. Member that it is true and I cannot break it down as the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is not as stupid as that, and neither am I. I am asking where they came from, whether the R.A.O.C. or R.E.M.E., and the arms of the forces in which they are

now serving. I want an answer, not necessarily by regiments, but whether they are in the Infantry, the Artillery, or the Royal Armoured Corps? To be quite frank, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 10,000. I think the War Office have sold him a pup, and what I am trying to stop them doing is selling the nation a pup. I am judging the right hon. Gentleman by his speeches over the last six years, which I always read with great interest and I am watching what he does with the impossible task he set when he was in opposition. I know he cannot live up to his Opposition role.
Over the question of a Colonial Army he had to say that the Labour Party have been right all the time and that the military experts opposite have been wrong. Just as he was wrong over his colonial forces policy, so he will be proved wrong over his teeth and tail policy.

Mr. Head: As the hon. Member attacks me so much, I should point out that in the Army Estimates I announced that either there had been formed, or there was in process of being formed, four extra colonial battalions. I never heard an equivalent announcement during the time the hon. Member's party were in power.

Mr. Wigg: I will leave my hon. Friends to reply to that; they have time to do so, but I have a few more shots I wish to fire. If the right hon. Gentleman will read his own speeches, he will see that there is a frank admission that there is a shortage of "middle piece" officers and n.c.o.s and it is just those commodities of which the Army is short. Therefore, he said, it would be far better to use his "middle piece" officers and n.c.o.s on training British troops than use them to train colonial troops. That is what we said, and now the right hon. Gentleman has found out the facts.
If he finds it so difficult to answer me on the question of the 10,000, would he tell us about the 5th Infantry Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division of B.A.O.R., because when in opposition he made an awful song and dance about the number of officers there? He told us there were 14 officers; how many are there now? That will be good enough to get on with. If he cannot tell us about the 10,000, let us know about that infantry brigade.
I said in a previous debate that I thought it very important that nothing should be done to impair Regular recruiting because ultimately our efforts to get rid of compulsory military service, first by cutting down the two years to 18 months, and perhaps later reducing still further, or making it selective, can only be done by getting more Regular recruits, and the mood of the Z reservists or National Service men is of very great importance because the extent to which they are happy and satisfied will have a great influence on recruiting.
This is one of the occasions when we can voice complaints of constituents, and I propose to voice the complaints of some of mine. I submit that there has been a harsh change in the calling up of Z reservists. A year ago one was quite certain when one went to the War Office that the facts were received sympathetically. We did get a kindly and courteous reply and felt that those responsible had gone out of their way to meet the legitimate needs of the individual and of his employer. I will not mention names, unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to. I have two constituents who are engaged in driving motor coaches, which are very busy during the summer months. A considerable number of my constituents go to the seaside then and firms in Dudley and Stourbridge engaged in running buses are particularly busy in June and, of course, in August week.
Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to allow these men whose names I have given him, who are quite willing to do their class Z training, to postpone their call-up or have it brought forward? In another case a young man is sitting for an extra-mural examination. It is rather costly and takes up all his spare time. He asks the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to postpone his call-up—he wants to do his service—or to bring it forward so that he may continue his studies and not lose his chance of passing the examination. This very reasonable request was refused.
I happened to find out by chance, through reading a newspaper, that a professional cricketer—again I will not read the name—although due to report on 5th May, has had his call-up postponed. The county cricket club went to the War

Office and asked them to postpone it, and the War Office did postpone it.

Air Commodore Harvey: Which team?

Mr. Wigg: He plays for Worcestershire.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He should have been playing for Lancashire; then it would have been all right.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I was about to ask which team and who it was.

Mr. Wigg: I will give the name of the man if hon. Members wish. It is Jack Flavell and he plays for Worcestershire. I make no complaint about him having his training postponed because he is a professional cricketer. I do not mind if there are a dozen professional cricketers or footballers given this concession. I go further and say, of course, he ought to be given this concession; it is his livelihood and in the summer months he is busy. It would be a severe financial loss to him and his club—[An HON. MEMBER: "And to the public."]—and to the public, if he were not given the concession. All I want is that my constituents should be treated in the same way.
I want the War Office and the Secretary of State to go out of their way and see that their staff go out of their way to meet the legitimate needs of the individual so that they may carry out their training with the utmost goodwill. Then, when they come out of the Army, they will feel that the time has been well spent and their services used intelligently and they might even join the Supplementary Reserve.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know my hon. Friend had experience of the War Office during the time of the Labour Government. When questions of this character were drawn to the attention of the War Office, did the Minister give his personal attention to them?

Mr. Wigg: So far as I can say the Minister always gave his personal attention to matters brought to him and it would be unfair to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does not also give matters his personal attention. What I am complaining of is the mood which is coming over the Army and the War Office. The mood of the Secretary of State is spreading over the Army and we


are getting back to the parade ground sort of business, of, "yours not to reason why."

Mr. Smith: There is a bit of that on more than one side.

Mr. Wigg: I wish to turn to another criticism from a lady who complains that her 18 years old son, on being called up, reported for his medical examination prior to joining the Army under the National Service Act. When he got there he was at once badgered to join the Regular Army and all sorts of inducements were held out to him—many of which, it seems to me, were untrue. When the lad said he did not want to join the Regular Army, but he would like to go to a particular unit, at once the barrage started again. He was told, "Well, you can only do this if you join the Regular Army."
That kind of thing is not right, and at the end of the day the Army will not gain by it. They may get one or two young men who, in an unguarded moment, will undertake to join the Regular Army, but in the long run they will lose. These "smart Alec" tactics of trying to get recruits for the Regular Army at all costs may sound very fine, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, are recruiting rewards paid to recruiters in respect of young National Service men reporting in accordance with their obligations under the National Service Act? I hope I shall get a specific answer to that. I never get answers to the questions I put to him, but I hope this will be an exception, and that he will tell the House whether rewards are paid to recruiters in those circumstances.
I also want to ask him, whether, when young National Service men are reporting for their medical inspections, they are handed a paper which lays down officially what advantages there are to them in joining the Regular Army, or is it left for them to find that out from the irresponsible chatter of recruiters attached to the National Service depot or establishment where they are being medically examined? I hope he will investigate this particular complaint—I will send him this letter—of the individual I am mentioning, and if he finds that it is justified that he will do something to relieve

this young man from his Regular Army engagement.
Perhaps he will go so far as to consider the Amendment I shall put down when the Army Act comes before the House, to ensure that the consent of the parents is required before a young man, under the age of 21, can undertake a Regular Army engagement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that is not unreasonable. It is quite a different proposition today from when a young man was joining the Regular Army before the war, and had talked the matter over with his parents, or was joining of his own volition.
Today a young man arrives at the place where he is to be medically examined, because he is required to do so by this House, and it is obvious that this House has lost control of what is said to him when he gets there. In my time I have done a bit of recruiting and I have often been a successful recruiter—[Laughter.]—oh, yes. I will compare my recruiting figures against any of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Only my recruits were volunteers who joined the ranks. They did not get back-door Commissions in the way mentioned during the debate on the Army Estimates.
I believe I know what sometimes goes on, and I am certain no responsible officer would accept the responsibility for what used to go on when an ardent recruiter, perhaps under the influence of a pint or two, saw the possibility of a recruiting reward before him and the steps which were sometimes taken to secure that reward. I shall feel happier if the Secretary of State will have a look at this particular problem, because in the long run the Army will not gain anything from it. At first sight it may look attractive to put a little pressure on these men, and perhaps he might get 100 or 1,000 recruits for the Regular Army. But when these recruits get into barracks, and begin to talk among themselves in the barrack rooms, and begin to see how they have been "done" the amount of which will result constitutes great harm to the Army.
I hope that the Secretary of State will turn over a new leaf this afternoon and that he will answer at least one or two of the questions put to him.

6.5 p.m.

Air Commodore Harvey: For nearly seven years I have, in this House, sat next to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and to the best of my knowledge, we have never had a cross word. But today I differ violently with him on the proposal which he has put forward that the Army should have its own air force.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Another split.

Air Commodore Harvey: It is not a very big difference, compared with what is going on on the other side of the House. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend is not serious—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: He never is.

Air Commodore Harvey: I do not think that is altogether fair or relevant, because my hon. and gallant Friend has made many thoughtful contributions in debates in this House. But today I want to beg him to change his mind, because the three Services went through all this controversy 30 years ago.
I agree that at the beginning of the last war the situation was not very satisfactory. One might find at an R.A.F. station that Army officers were carrying out their duties, gunners and so on, and living at one end of the mess while the R.A.F. were at the other. These Army officers were usually known as "Brown Johns." I know that the situation improved out of all knowledge, and by 1945 the Army and the R.A.F. worked as one team. Whether that is the fact today or not, I do not know. If it is not, then it is up to the Secretary of State and the Chiefs of Staff to put matters right. But I would be dead against disrupting something which is working well.
Only last week an hon. and gallant Member of this House was asking for an inquiry into the possibility of Coastal Command being handed over to the Royal Navy. This kind of thing seems to be spreading like measles, and seems to be designed to split up the Royal Air Force. I can only think it is because the Royal Air Force has received a large increase in the Estimates, and is rapidly gaining prestige and super-priority in air matters, and that the other Services are allowing jealousy to influence them. I think it is most unfortunate.
We shall have Army officers flying transport machines when troops want to go to the Far East. It does not begin to make sense. What we have to do is to weld the three Services together, and I believe it can be done. We shall have the Royal Marines asking for their air power. Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is very much out-of-date in pursuing this line of thought.
He went on to say that the Army requires an anti-tank weapon. If they have no anti-tank weapon they should never start thinking about taking over the power of the Royal Air Force. The complications of supply and training make it absolutely imperative that we must have a centralised air power. We have seen what has gone on in America, and we have gone through all the stages in our own country. I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that it is clear these proposals will not work at all; and if this kind of thing is said often enough in this House, it will be very distressing to officers in all three Services.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not object to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I think I laid myself open to it. But I wish to make it clear to him that I do not consider it would be right in any way to take away bits and pieces from the Royal Air Force so that it ceased to be a force at all. What I am saying is simply that there should be one small section of the Army which has its own air arm, just one small section. The Navy has an air arm; surely it would be fair for the Army to have one.

Air Commodore Harvey: But the argument goes much farther than that. The Navy already have the Fleet Air Arm, but they want Coastal Command as well. Next they will want to take over the Tactical Air Force and Transport Command, and if my hon. and gallant Friend gets his way, that will comprise practically the whole of the Royal Air Force which saved this country in 1940.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Surely the Air Force has its own small army, the R.A.F. Regiment, and surely my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) would allow this little equivalent?

Air Commodore Harvey: I could develop that argument much further, because in actual fact I have said many times in this House that the Royal Air Force, which has operational control of Anti-Aircraft Command, ought to put them into blue. I will not pursue that, because it is quite clear that they should. If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that the R.A.F. Regiment ought to go to the Army—it is only a small force, although it has distinguished itself in many fields—I should think that could be worked out between the respective Services. But it is absolutely imperative that the Royal Air Force should stay intact.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: On a point of order. There is an icy cold draught blowing down the Chamber. I do not know whether anything can be done about it. Perhaps it has something to do with the hot air which has emanated from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

6.10 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: After the inter-Departmental squabble between the "brass hats," I will try to pour oil on troubled waters. First, I should like to thank the Minister for his extreme courtesy in going to the trouble to burn the midnight oil on the occasion of our last consideration of the Army Estimates in order to answer a question which I put to him about field marshals. He had a job to find them. They were scattered all over the place, but it was nice to know that they were in the Estimates.
I gather from the Estimates that the Minister has no trouble with the Treasury about recruiting. The Treasury appear to be forthcoming for purposes connected with Her Majesty's Army. I wonder, however, whether the Minister has reflected on the likely effect on recruiting of the niggardly attitude of the Treasury towards the Ministry of Pensions. Men in the Service, and their dependants, like to think that if, unfortunately, they should be injured, they will receive decent and adequate compensation.
All they have got is a "lousy ten bob." Only 35,000 of the 710,000 will get the full ten "bob." It would be a good idea in the interests of recruiting if the Secretary of State for War acted as mediator between the Ministry of Pensions and the

Treasury to try to get a little more justice for the ex-Service men of past wars. Then he might get more recruits for present wars.

Mr. F. Harris: Was not that award equal to all the awards during the six years of the Socialist Government?

Mr. Simmons: No. I have given figures previously which show that under the Socialist Government over £11 million: was given; in this case only £10 million is, granted to meet unforeseen contingencies caused by the Budget.

Mr. Vane: The first was over six years, and the second over six months.

Mr. Simmons: On 10th March when I raised the question of the chaplains in the Forces the Minister said what I believe. He said:
They give invaluable service to the Army, and I do not think there is anything wrong with them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1219.]
I never said that there was. I agree that their service in the war was magnificent. I was concerned whether they were really getting down to the job which they should be doing. The Minister said that the chaplains received commissions and that they used the officers' mess.
I ask him to consider this position. The ethical and spiritual standard of our Forces ought to receive the full consideration of the War Office, the Government and the House. If we spend public money on the provision of chaplains, we ought to ensure that they carry out their work effectively and efficiently. What is the attitude of the man in the ranks to someone who is too good to eat with him, too good to drink with him or to mess with him?
I ask the Government to consider what it done in religious life outside the Army. In my constituency there is a works chaplains' organisation. The Ministers of the various denominations do not wait for the men to come to church or chapel. They go into the factories among the men. They sit among them at mealtimes in the canteens. If the chaplains' service is to be efficient in the Army, the chaplains ought to belong to the rank and file. They ought to live in the barrack rooms with the soldiers.
How can the soldiers be assured that the example of these men is what it ought to be unless they are in the same barrack rooms with them and unless they mess with them? That is the way to set an example. Religion means nothing if it is merely preached from pulpit. Religion can only catch hold and grip men when those who profess it live their religion and when it is apparent to those around them that they are doing so.
Not only in the Army but in the general life of the nation we need a restoration of spiritual standards. If we are to secure that, the leaders in religious ideas and principles ought to go among the people whom they are trying to convert. The chaplains in the Army ought to be in the ranks. I beg the Minister to give that suggestion his careful and earnest consideration.
I know that in my own denomination there is a shortage of clergy. Would it not be possible to have lay readers in the Army—men from the rank and file who are ordinary privates? Where there is a shortage of chaplains, could we not have such lay readers doing ordinary military duties and taking time off to conduct services and to do the other jobs usually done by chaplains? These are constructive proposals put forward in complete honesty of purpose and with complete sincerity. I beg the Minister to consider them.
I should also like information on the question of professional groups in the Army in the dental, medical, veterinary and educational corps. I assume that the emoluments of the officers in these corps are fixed in consultation with their professional associations such as the B.M.A. I suppose that the B.M.A. would have a say with regard to the officer in the R.A.M.C., but there are other corps in which the men have not professional organisations but trade unions.
There are corps such as the Ordnance Corps, the Engineers, the Armoured Corps and R.E.M.E. Is there any consultation between the trade unions of these men which are just as important to them as are the professional organisations to the other corps? The A.E.U. is just as important to the engineer and the E.T.U. is just as important to the electrician, as the B.M.A. is to the doctor. Are these organisations consulted when

the rates of pay of the men in the professional and working corps are considered?
I am disturbed about this idea of a boys' infantry battalion. I see that we are taking boys into the Army at the tender age of between 15 and 17½. Surely, at that age a boy's mind is not sufficiently mature and balanced for him to decide whether he wants to make the Army a career. It may be that a boy comes from an Army family and that the Army think that his parents will put him into the boys' battalion from the point of view of tradition, and all that.
Is that fair to the boy? He is an individual, with an individual's right to live. We do not call up men for National Service until they are 18, and then, of course, they must go, whether they want to or not, but we take these boys from 15 to 17½. It is like conscripting children—the kind of thing which we would call an atrocity if the enemy had done it, though, when we do it, it is something entirely different. I ask the Minister to have second thoughts on this matter.
Even when he gets a recruit at the age of 18 with the possibility of serving in the Army as a career for 22 years, what does the Minister do? The Minister says to the recruit, "Do not make up your mind already; you cannot be expected to make up your mind at the age of 18. Serve for three years, and then, at the end of that time, if you do not want to stay, you can go. At the end of six years, if you do not want to stop, you can go." The right hon. Gentleman gives that tender treatment to a recruit of 18, who is certainly more capable of making up his mind, and certainly more mature than a boy of 15, who is taken into the Army at that age to make the Army a career. I say that it is un-British, and different from the way of life in which we in this country believe.
I have a further point to raise about Polish officers. I see on page 171 of the Estimates a Vote, which has risen from £3,000 to £3,300, for the provision of pensions to former officers of the Polish Forces, and I find that there are only four of these officers, who are to receive these pensions in recognition of valuable services rendered to the Allied cause during the war. What about all the others who rendered valuable services? What was the outstanding characteristic in the cases


of these four Polish officers who are singled out for this distinction? Could we have some information about that?
Next, I want to say a word or two about V.C. pensions. In the last debate, I raised this question by way of an illustration, and I quoted the amount of the V.C. pension against another amount. I find in the Estimates that V.C. pensions amount to £2,500, but we are not told how many holders of the V.C. there are. We are told that the nominal grant to a V.C. is £10 a year, and it seems rather niggardly to me.
I know that the present Government are not responsible, because all Governments, from the time when the V.C. was instituted, had a share in the responsibility, but the man who has won the V.C. and has survived winning the greatest award for gallantry, not only in this country, but in the world, is fobbed off with a miserable £10 a year, which is a most despicable way of expressing our gratitude for such service. I would like to know whether something can be done about that, not in these Estimates, but perhaps in next year's Estimates, so that there could be some improvement in the award made in respect of the Victoria Cross.
My final question concerns Chelsea Hospital and various pensions, and I do not want to go into detail. I want to ask the Minister if he will consider whether the time has not come to examine the possibility of handing over to the Ministry of Pensions, whose job it would seem to be, the administration of hospitals and the handling of pensions which are at present in the hands of the War Office.
I am casting no aspersions on the War Office in saying this. I speak with some little experience of the Ministry of Pensions, both during the term of office of the last Government and in the first few months of the present Government, and I am convinced that the fresh breath of fresh air which blew through the Ministry of Pensions during the last six years has had a permanent effect. I am convinced that, both by training and by inclination, those who are responsible for the administration of pensions under the present Government would be able to deal more sympathetically and more humanly with these matters by reason of that experience.

6.25 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I will not detain the House very long, because it was so patient to me during the original debate, but I have two points I wish to make.
May I say that we all enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), because he speaks with great sincerity and makes constructive suggestions, to which we all listen with attention, although he is sometimes slightly misinformed, in contrast with the hon. Gentleman who is sitting on the Front Bench below him?
I can assure the hon. Member for Brierley Hill that, although I do not know what the Army may have been like in his day, it has altered a lot, and that I myself would not have kept a padre if he had not mixed with the men in the canteens at meal times, at play times and every other time. When, however, the hon. Gentleman suggests that chaplains should hold ordinary rank, or be privates or whatever other rank he would suggest, the hon. Gentleman might find that chaplains in the barrack room might be a great embarrassment to the soldiers in that barracks. If the soldiers were asked themselves, there might not be a great rush to suggest that the chaplain should live with the men in a particular barracks.
We have had some experience of the question whether n.c.o.s should mess with the men. The hon. Gentleman should ask the men themselves whether they want it; they are the people who will tell him. He should not ask the n.c.o.s, because there is another side to that question. I think the average parson in the Army—I admit that there are some bad ones, and I usually tried to get rid of them if I had half a chance—does try to mix with the men, to mess with them and live with them, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman shortly to go into the Smoke Room and look at the report published in an evening paper from two scientists from the War Office who studied conditions in Korea, and to note what they have said about the way in which parsons are behaving out there. Regarding his suggestion about lay readers, there are lay readers already at work and able to carry out their functions.
I wish to raise one other point about which I feel very strongly, and that concerns the cadet battalion. We have only


one at present, as an experiment, and I would say that we ought to wait and see how the idea works out. I welcome the idea, from the point of view of discovering whether or not a boy is likely to join the Army for 22 years, but, surely, he ought to have the same option to leave the Army at the end of three years, if he wishes to do so, as any other soldier? I think the cadet battalion will prove very useful in giving these boys an idea of what military life is really like.
Another matter to which I want to refer concerns the .280 rifle, and I am raising this question in an entirely non-party spirit, because it goes right across the Floor of the House. I make no excuse for supporting some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the former Secretary of State for War, although I do not think he put the matter quite rightly. I should like to put it in the perspective in which I see it, and I am not making a party point about this.
The late Government got rid of an enormous number of .303 rifles. I am not criticising them. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did we do with them?"] I know what they did with them; they sold them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not get so excited; that is where they weaken their case, when, in fact, I am really trying to help. We had not got an adequate reserve of .303 rifles, and a reserve had to be built up. The ideas of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on what constitutes an adequate reserve and those of the Prime Minister, who had some experience of the matter during the war, are probably quite different.
The British Army seems to eat rifles. They are always getting lost, and that is the crux of the whole situation. If we made it an offence for court-martial sentence to lose a rifle, we might cure this trouble. We have got to have an enormous reserve of rifles, either the .280 or whatever rifle is to be used in the future.
The corollary to that is simply that if we are going to change over from the .303 to .280 rifle something else has got to go by the board, and I would not like to be the one who had to say what it was going to be. Therefore, I say, what I tried to say when I was completely misquoted in the debate the other day,

that I hope that further representations are being made to the American Government over the .280 rifle. In the debate the other day I was quoted as saying that I knew representations were being made. I do not know, and I did not then know, whether that is the case.
I implore my right hon. Friend to see if in some way or other we cannot persuade the Americans to go into production on this rifle so that at the same time we can do so on a minor scale. If we do not get the vast potential of the American Continent going into production on this rifle, then I can quite see it is going to be a very difficult problem for us. I believe that at one moment the Americans were just on the verge of adopting our line of thought, and then something happened to upset it. I hope the final word has not been said on that, and that something is really going to be done to try to produce, not only for our troops, but for all the European Forces, what in my view is the finest rifle that has ever been invented.
Now I come back, very shortly, to the attack on the question of armoured carriers for infantry, and I will try and make my point perhaps clearer than I did last time. I was talking about two different kinds of vehicles, about the semi-tracked vehicle for bringing detachments from one side of the battlefield to the other or up or down—these vehicles need not necessarily belong to the actual unit—and the Army infantry carrier, like the Sherman Tank with its inside taken out, for taking infantry engaged in the attack up on to the objective.
It is no earthly good anybody at the War Office, or any general or even the C.I.G.S. himself—God bless him—telling me that men can be taken on to an objective where tanks are being used in wheeled vehicles. Nobody who has seen tanks in action in modern conditions, with the ground all churned up and with even the tanks getting bogged down, would agree that infantry can be got to the objective in wheeled vehicles. They might get 300 yards in such a vehicle when they would get stuck, and that would be the end of the attack.
My last word is to welcome wholeheartedly this new scheme of recruiting by regiments. Do not let us crab it. Every scheme has its snags, and quite obviously


we shall get the almost ridiculous situation where we get letters from the mothers of National Service men who have only just arrived in Hong Kong with the battalion, have been there six weeks or so, and will then come straight home again. I am prepared to accept that absurd situation in the few cases where it will happen in order to reap the tremendous advantage of moving about battalions at three-yearly intervals as battalions. We are short of numbers, but we can always in this British Army of ours make up our numbers by the team spirit, the regimental spirit. One man with that spirit is worth 10 men without it. Therefore, I welcome the scheme wholeheartedly.

6.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Reference has been made by previous speakers to the need for encouraging voluntary recruitment. A few moments ago the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) referred to the regimental spirit as an important factor in the build-up of the Army's formations. I have always felt that the best possible recruiting medium for the Army is the soldier already serving. It is what he says in conversation with his friends outside and the letters that he writes home that has a direct influence upon the rate of voluntary recruitment.
It is, of course, quite clear that the more we can encourage voluntary recruitment the sooner we may be able to modify or perhaps even to dispense with compulsory National Service. In my view compulsory National Service represents our last resort if voluntary recruitment is inadequate and if the pressure of events makes the maintenance of adequate Armed Forces absolutely essential. I can best illustrate my point by quoting one or two actual incidents.
The authorities are endeavouring to encourage men to join up under short-service engagements. In that connection, the attitude of certain Government Departments seems to me to be difficult to understand. I know of one case of a constituent of mine who is particularly anxious to enlist for a short-service commission. He went to the appropriate Government Department by which he is employed and told them he wanted to

join for a short-service commission. After his application had been before the responsible people in that Department for five months, he was told that his application could not be granted.
He is not prepared to forfeit seniority and Civil Service pension, etc. He has been told that if he were to join on a short-service engagement he would have to give up his Civil Service appointment. I will provide the right hon. Gentleman with the evidence in this case if he wants it. This sort of thing applies to all three branches of the Forces and it seems to me that there ought to be some co-ordinating tribunal to which anybody employed by the Government could appeal in the event of his application, in the circumstances I have outlined, being rejected by the Department concerned.
Now I turn to what happens to the soldier when he is called up under the National Service scheme. It strikes me as peculiar that in many cases no regard whatever is paid to the medical reports or certificates that may be brought along by the National Service man for presentation to his commanding officer or to the medical officer of his unit. I know of one case in which a National Service man who suffered from flat feet and weak ankles was called up. Nevertheless, he was considered fit for service. But he had to wait five months before being provided with suitable footwear.
How that state of affairs arises, I simply cannot understand. After correspondence with the War Office, suitable footwear was at last provided for this man, but, as I say, it took five or six months to achieve that result. When the man reported for duty with his unit, he brought with him a medical certificate from his own doctor, certifying that some such provision would be absolutely essential. All that kind of thing gets back home. Parents and friends hear about it, and it has a most adverse effect on recruitment.
Then we have the other kind of case where, unfortunately, a man may be killed in action and where it sometimes takes months before the pitiful bundle of soldier's effects is returned to his next of kin. In one instance, of which I know, the son of a constituent of mine was killed in Malaya last October, and the soldier's effects have not yet reached his parents. This strikes me as an inordinately long


time to take before the little bundle the soldier may have left behind is returned to his parents.
There is another even more outrageous case to which I will refer only briefly because I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer forthwith. I shall have to state it in the form of a Parliamentary Question to him, but I quote it in passing to show how these things adversely affect recruiting in a constituency like mine.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall the case of Gunner O'Leary, who has been missing in Malaya since 2nd March, 1951. In reply to a Question last November the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that he would try to have the matter cleared up as quickly as possible. He promised it would be cleared up within a week or so. The case of Gunner O'Leary is still, as it were, in the "pending" file. His parents, who reside in Brixton, are naturally very distressed, and are still waiting to know what has been the fate of their son.
That is the kind of thing people in constituencies up and down the country hear about. When one goes along to try to persuade anyone to join the Army voluntarily, people remember cases like that of Gunner O'Leary. The matter becomes common property in conversation in the area where the lad has lived and inevitably it has a harmful effect upon the minds of those who might have thought at some time or another that they would like to join the Army.
There is another point to which, as far as I can gather, no reference has been made in any of the debates on the Army Estimates. It is important to ensure that adequate Reserves are available. At present there are quite a number of Reserves to which Army officers can belong. There are the Supplementary Reserve, the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers and another Reserve, to which no reference was made in the Estimates and about which we hear nothing at all—the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve.
When an officer leaves the Service some kind of half-hearted attempt is made to induce him to join one or other of these Reserves. Little is done to make those who have joined the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve, for example, realise that they belong to anything at all.

Every year a letter is sent to a person who may be in that Reserve asking him to confirm his present address—which is a polite way of ascertaining whether he is alive or dead. That is all that happens from one year's end to another.
It would be an improvement of the set-up if the age limits could be adjusted. There is an age limit which varies from corps to corps in the Supplementary Reserve, and there is no Supplementary Reserve at all in some branches of the Service. Only today I found that an appeal is being made in the Press for staff officers under 42 years old to take up a three-year engagement in the Territorial Army. Why 42 years? It seems to me that some of these staff appointments in the Territorial Army could be easily filled with reasonable efficiency by men aged 45 or 48.
The same remarks apply to age restrictions now in force in the Supplementary Reserve. Again, in some of the specialist branches of the Army it would be quite possible, without detriment to the Service, to raise the ages below which suitaable officers can be enlisted in the Supplementary or other Reserves that might be available.
Before an officer can find out whether there exists a Reserve for which he might be considered suitable, he is put to a great deal of trouble and inconvenience. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be worth while to produce a very simple pamphlet or leaflet setting out clearly all the various branches of the Service, the upper age limits and other relevant details so that intending reservists could see at a glance whether there was any branch in which they could suitably enlist. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will pay some attention to the suggestions made, even though he cannot give a definite reply or enter upon definite commitments this evening.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: If I may say so, there was one remark which the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) made which rather surprised me. He thought it would be a good idea to make it a court-martial offence for a man to lose his rifle. I should be surprised to learn that it is not so already.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I realised immediately I said it that I should have amplified that remark. Obviously, it always has been a court-martial offence to lose a rifle in peace-time or under peace conditions; but I assure the hon. Member that although there may be a sanction to that effect, in war and in battle rifles are lost far too frequently without any action being taken at all.

Mr. Stewart: My own experience of military service has been only during the few years of war, but one of my earliest experiences was of figuring in a court-martial the cause of which was a lost rifle though, I am happy to say, I was only a witness. I share the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the Secretary of State for War will answer some of the questions put to him today and, indeed, questions put to him in our earlier debate which he did not then answer.
I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises that when he listens to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) he is probably getting very much nearer to a voicing of the thought, feelings, and hopes of a very large number of men in the Army than he is likely to get from any other quarter in this House. I hope that he will bear that in mind whenever either of my hon. Friends is speaking.

Colonel J. H. Harrison: Does the hon. Member suggest that when the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is voicing his opinions about the Guards that is an expression of the feelings of the rest of the men in the Army?

Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley says any more than hon. Members opposite always agree with each other; but whether one agrees or disagrees with him it is worth while listening with respect and attention, in view of his experience.
I should like to press a couple of points which I raised in our earlier debate and which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer. One concerns the proposed boys' battalion. In his reference to it in our earlier debate the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped the boys in that battalion would not only be

trained as n.c.o.s and warrant officers but would have the opportunity to try for commissions. In the official statement with regard to the formation of the battalion there is no mention of that, and I think we ought to be told more clearly what opportunities, if any, the boys in this battalion will have of trying for commissions.
I am sure it is important that we should not distinguish at too early an age between the man who is considered a potential officer and a man who is not. Indeed, I think it very likely that we are already running a danger of making that distinction too early in a man's Army career. When it was suggested in our earlier debate that potential officers might be drawn from the senior n.c.o.s, the right hon. Gentleman rather heatedly dismissed that suggestion. If it is his view that once the men have got a certain distance up the non-commissioned promotion ladder it is undesirable for them to step across to commissioned rank, it becomes all the more important that they should not be destined for that non-commissioned promotion ladder at too early an age.
If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the men being removed when they are higher up the ladder, he must see the desirability of there being a certain fluidity lower down and not drawing a distinction between the man who is considered a potential officer and the man who is not at an age and at a point in his Army career when there is not enough evidence to justify a final decision.
This boys' battalion, if it develops in one way, can be a valuable addition to the Army. If it develops in another way it can be an attempt to stereotype well before these people reach manhood the distinction between an officer type and a non-officer type, and if that is what it is to do' it will do a serious injury to the Army. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear. As I say, it is in his hands to make this scheme either a great advantage or a great disadvantage to the Army. I realised when the right hon. Gentleman became rather heated over the point last time that when he is heated it is not so much that he is annoyed but that, for one reason or another, he does not wish to answer the question at that moment and wishes to distract our attention from it. He has


now had time to consider it, and no doubt he will answer it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the projected school which, if I understood him correctly, will be a kind of scientific or technical equivalent of Sandhurst to which the students should go at the age of 16 and stay until 18, and receive a general education with a strong military bias. I believe that is a very important and useful proposal. All I wish to ask is, what stage has it reached so far? Is it any more than a project that he has discussed, or is he in a position to say at all when it is likely to become a reality?
There is one other point connected with both the points which I have already raised. Both of them concern bringing boys into the Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill asked whether it is desirable to get a minor to enter into a contract that may bind him for a very long period of years. It will be worth while for the right hon. Gentleman, when he is embarking upon both these projects concerning the drawing of boys into the Army, to ascertain what provision there is for them to get out of the Army if they should discover some years after they have embarked upon a military life that they are not suitable for it.
While he is doing that, he might consider at the same time the existing position with regard to boys in the Army apprentice schools. I frankly confess that I was never altogether happy about the position of minors in the Army. The great difficulty we had about allowing anybody who had contracted to serve the Army to get out of it in the last few years was one that made it difficult to press this question, but now that the right hon. Gentleman has these two projects on hand it is something that he might usefully look at again.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing suggested that these boys on reaching manhood would be able to get out at the end of every three years, like a Regular soldier. I hope it can be confirmed that it will be possible to do that; but there should also be some opportunity during their minority for them to reconsider their position. Those three points, all of

which concern the relationship of young people to the Army, are additions to the already quite formidable list of questions which my hon. Friends have put to the right hon. Gentleman, and to which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) may shortly be adding. I earnestly hope that we shall have answers to those questions.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I wish to refer to the position of chaplains in the Army, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) who, I am glad to say, put all the emphasis he could on the spiritual side of their duties and never made any mention at all of the welfare type of work which also comes their way in the Army but which, in some cases, may tend to submerge their prime and most important task.
The hon. Gentleman went on to develop the argument that because a chaplain in the British Army is a commissioned officer in one sense, and wears the badges of a commissioned officer, he is at a great disadvantage vis-à-vis the majority of his flock. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) countered by explaining what disadvantage he would be at if the position were reversed and he were to rank for all purposes, messing and accommodation, as a private soldier. I hope that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill had not in mind too closely the comparison with the French Army. I know that it is often said that chaplains in the French Army have a different and better status from chaplains in our Army, but I do not think that is altogether a fair comparison.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that although there may be few occasions when under the present system a chaplain is at a disadvantage, those few occasions are worth considering, and that perhaps the middle way may in the end form the best solution. Wherever a chaplain messes, I certainly think that he should have a billet to himself. That would immediately overcome the main difficulty. I believe there is a different system in the Royal Navy, and that although the chaplain there may have privileges equivalent to those of an officer, nonetheless he does not wear officers' badges of rank That might be an advantage.
I suggest that in the Army the chaplain should wear whatever badges may be appropriate to show his seniority in his own corps, but that these badges should not be the stars and crowns of the normal combatant officer. For purposes of messing he might have access to all messes, and he should so rank not as a private, an n.c.o., or as an officer. He should definitely have the privacy of a billet to himself at all times.
In my experience in the Army there have been very few occasions when I have seen a chaplain in difficulty with his main work and duties. In part, but only on the rarest of occasions, does it depend on his own physique or character. I have found few men whom I did not think well fitted for that duty. There have been rather more occasions when a chaplain has not given of his best because he had not been given all the encouragement he might expect either from the commanding officer of his unit or else from the commander of the formation in which that unit found itself.
In one formation in which I served at the beginning of the war—the 50th Northumbrian Division where, incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was D.A.A.G.—there was a direct order from the divisional commander, General Martel, that wherever we moved some of the best accommodation in any village wherever the unit might find itself should immediately be earmarked for the unit chaplain, and that a sign like an inn sign, bearing the cross of St. George, had to be hung outside the building.
That applied even if the unit halted in that area for only one night. In that building at least one room had to be furnished at once, however simply, as a chapel. I have never served with a formation where the morale, and the freedom from crime were more remarkable than in that formation at that particular time.
Finally, I should like my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is possible slightly to amend the present system under which chaplains carry badges of rank which are too like those of combatant officers. Will he try to allow them rather more freedom in regard to the very special position they hold in a battalion, and so help them carry the heavy

spiritual responsibility which must be with them all the time?

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: I do not intend to keep the House for very long, but I wish to emphasise a point which has been raised on a number of occasions, and also in this debate, in relation to the call-up of Class Z men.
I am not at all satisfied with the statements which have been made by the Minister on a number of occasions when Questions have been put to him, that in every case where a man has written asking for deferment or exemption from call-up to the Class Z Reserve he has received just consideration. I have seen the stereotyped letters which have come from depot commanders simply turning the men down. I know we cannot have wholesale exemptions or deferments, and we do not know how long this Class Z Reserve is to be with us, but surely there are exceptional circumstances. I do not think that depot commanders or the War Office give adequate consideration to these cases.
I have heard of the case of a man who served in the last war and who was interned in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. We all know the horrible conditions in which those prisoners lived. That man's request was completely turned down. He was told that the fact that he had been a prisoner of war did not exempt him from being called up for the Class Z Reserve. That man went before a tribunal a few days ago and got complete exemption from his Class Z call-up.

The Under Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): The fact that a man has been a prisoner of war may or may not have done him great harm. We are not able to judge whether his physical health has suffered. Surely the fairest thing is for him to go before a medical tribunal so that they can judge, knowing full well that he has been a prisoner of war.

Mr. Shurmer: This man did not go before a prisoner-of-war tribunal; he went before a tribunal for conscientious objectors and he got away with it.
The Class Z call-up disturbs the home and business life of these men. I know that cannot be helped, but I have another


example of a man who, with his brother, decided to get married in June and have a double wedding with two sisters. A few days after all the arrangements for the double wedding had been made, this man received his call-up notice for June. He wrote to the commanding officer and got a stereotyped letter saying that there was no chance whatever for him. Surely, without having wholesale exemptions or deferments, a few cases here and there, similar to those I have quoted, could be favourably considered?
If such requests are not considered, I do not think men will go to these camps with a feeling of security, and be happy and contented to work in them. I should like to ask the Minister to look a little more leniently at this question of exemptions and give instructions to depot commanders not to send stereotyped letters turning down these men who, unless they can get the help of their Members of Parliament, or perhaps even ask the Minister, suffer inconvenience as a result of this call-up. I think they would do better training if they were able to be deferred when possible. The Minister will look again at this question of the call-up of Z reservists if he wants them to be contented and also to get some benefit from their service.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Following up this point about Class Z reservists and exemptions, I hope that the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State—whoever is to reply—can assure us that the very careful system of checks and counter-checks which we had in operation last summer is being maintained this summer. Although we made some mistakes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), and I did spend many hours on these Class Z cases and, by and large, I think we managed to deal with them with leniency and justice.
In that connection we were surprised to hear of the case raised by my hon. Friend, the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the professional cricketer who was going to be let off his Class Z call-up simply in order that he could play cricket. We had a very firm rule that it did not make any difference whether a man was a professional footballer or cricketer or anything else; he had to serve his period with the

Class Z Reserve. I hope it is not a fact that there has been some alteration in the rules since then.
On the question of the .280 rifle, I hope we shall have some clear and definite reply from the Secretary of State about the intention of the Government. We have had nothing but vacillation, delay, uncertainty and misunderstanding, and we have had no clear picture, except that there will be a little experimental production. As we on this side of the House have pointed out, experimental production is not good enough for the British Army and this great new rifle. I think it is the most monstrous derogation of duty to abandon this great British invention, and I hope the Government will show a little more courage and go ahead with this rifle and stop being so weak about it.
I have one or two specific questions to ask on minor but comparatively important points. First, with regard to the preliminary education centres, I think there was at one time a suggestion that their activities should be curtailed. I think it would be a great deal more useful to the Army and to the nation if their activities were extended, because these education centres are helpful to those who, through no fault of their own, have not attained a normal standard of education and perhaps cannot read or write.
It is surprising to know that there are still quite a few people who cannot read or write, many of whom had been removed from their homes during the war, or had had long periods of illness and been unable to go to school. The preliminary education centre does give them a very intensive course and enables the men leaving it to read and write and be well on the way to acquiring self-confidence, self-respect and education.
That is of value to the Army and of enormous value to the nation and to the man himself, and it compensates a little for the fact that the Army is obliged to take out of civilian life so many young men and put them into uniform. I hope we are not going to take a retrogressive step with regard to these centres but are going to expand them, because with a small number of n.c.o.s and officers they achieve an enormous beneficial result.
I should like to ask about the Grade 3 staff officer in the War Office today.


There were far too many in the War Office, certainly last summer, and I think there were endeavours to eliminate the number of grades of these staff officers and to return them, in as many instances as possible, to their units. Even if that meant more work for the Grade 2 staff officer in the War Office, I think that process should be continued.
We on this side of the House are still interested to know why the Secretary of State has abandoned his pre-Election pledge to give local overseas allowances to the men in Korea. He has consistently dodged this question, to which he and I both know the answer, and he will not come out in public and admit that he made a bit of an ass of himself for pressing it before. I think he might don a white sheet today on this question.
On the subject of the Class Z Reserve call-up this year, I hope that arrangements will be made so that anybody called up for 15 days may, if he wishes, opt to do another 15 days next year without having the Territorial Army or Reserve training commitment in between. The call-up means that people are often called up to Territorial units far from their homes, and it would be quite impracticable for them to have a Territorial Army commitment with the unit to which they had been called up. There may be certain home difficulties or work difficulties which prevent Territorial Army commitments, too.
A great deal of enthusiasm last year was lost to the Army this year because it was not possible for people who wished to do another 15 days in the same unit to sign on to do them. This was because of a misapprehension of what the reaction would be in the Territorial Army. Certainly no Territorial Army officer or other rank to whom I have spoken has had the least objection to this idea being put into operation. They were only too glad to have a full team for their training next year.
I should like to ask whether anything has been done about reducing the tour of service for battalions and units in Austria and Trieste. They have been staying there for three years at a time, and I suggest that the period should be reduced to two years. In the case of Austria, there is a slightly debilitating

atmosphere and there is a tendency for discipline and efficiency to decline after a longish period in that country. Two years is quite long enough.
In the case of Trieste, the area is so small that by the time a unit has been there two years and has done all its training schemes backwards and forwards it has covered the ground about 90 times and is heartily sick of the whole area. As a result, there is a deterioration in efficiency. Two years is quite sufficient there, too.
Finally, what is happening about the manufacture and distribution of the new stove which the Army is bringing into use in barracks and other places? The previous stove was invented by Mr. Soyer during the Crimean war, and in its way was quite an efficient stove, but the heating stove was not as good as the cooking stove. It used far too much fuel without giving a commensurate amount of heat. I should be very glad to hear whether we are going ahead with bringing the new stove into use.

7.13 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): We have had quite a lengthy discussion on the Report stage of these Estimates and, from the personal point of view, I am extremely glad that so much interest is being displayed in the House in Army matters. I have been asked a large number of questions and I consider that it is best straight away to do all I can to answer those questions and not to bother the House with any comments on the Report stage of the Estimates as a whole.
The only thing we have missed arises from the fact that this is one of the few debates on the Army Estimates, when I have been in the House, in which we have had no contribution from the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The only explanation I can offer is that he has left the House in order that he can form a political splinter-group with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), with whom he is in so marked an agreement.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) asked me, first of all, to say something in explanation of the policy on the 280 rifle. I am the first to agree with him about the importance of this matter, nor do I in any way


go back on anything I said in that I confirm the uniformly held view, as far as this country is concerned at any rate, of the supremacy of this excellent weapon.
We are accused of all this delay, but I would remind the right hon. Member that the stand-still on the production of the .280 rifle preceded the visit of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to America to discuss the matter.

Mr. Strachey: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that at that time there was no question of a decision being made to arrest the tooling-up or to postpone beginning the tooling-up of the new factory. On the contrary, the decision was to the opposite. Surely that is the point at issue.

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman's memory has let him down on this occasion. I am quite emphatic about this. I should not have made inquiries into this rifle without going into the matter with some care, and I repeat here and now that any additional or further steps concerning going into production with the .280 rifle were stopped when the right hon. Member for Easington went for the discussions in America, which he had to leave rather early because of a beauty competition in Scarborough. That was when it was stopped. It is of no great importance, but hon. Gentlemen opposite are accusing us of delay, and all I would point out is that that is when the delay started.
About our policy on the rifle—of course, we should like to have it. Hon. Members may ask, "Why not go ahead and give this splendid weapon to the British Army, which they would like?"—and I know they would like it. One cannot entirely liken this to a tank, because a rifle is the common denominator throughout not only the Army but to some extent the Air Force as well, and if we are to have any possible standardisation it is a vital weapon in which to have it. If we are to have standardisation, this is the single most important thing to standardise.
Our problem is not merely one of production but it is what would happen if we took unilateral action and adopted this rifle. I do not know, but it is extremely doubtful whether the Canadians

would come with us. I do not know, but it would not be easy for the Australians, who may be fighting in the Far East, to come with us. How about fighting in the Far East, quite close to America, when your ammunition supply is to a large extent based on this country?

Mr. Wyatt: It is now.

Mr. Head: At the moment they have some local production. Furthermore, when considering the adoption of a future rifle, think of the asset to Australia if they could have the same bore and the same type of rifle as America, because they are much closer to that country, with its vast productive effort.
What I am trying to say is that the seeds of this trouble lie back in time—I do not know who was to blame—when research was initiated to find a really good new light automatic rifle. It is a great pity that when the research started the terms of reference for these experts on rifles, who were dealing with the question of invention and research, were not common terms of reference—not that we should have the best rifle in the world at .280 or .278 or .300.
It would not have mattered if they had all started within the same terms of reference. Then the best would no doubt have been ours and then we should not have been in this difficulty. The trouble was that when research was initiated one country made research at .300 another at .278—and yet a third was done by the French. That is the great tragedy and that is what created this difficulty.

Mr. Wyatt: It is not quite as simple as that. We had to try to discover what was the best calibre as well as what was the best rifle of a particular calibre, so naturally research was going on in different calibres.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. Of course, phase 1 is to reach agreement on what is the best bullet. That is the problem of the size of the bullet. Once you have decided that and once you have decided what type of bullet it should be, then is the time to build the best rifle you possibly can and to have competition with other nations. The mistake was that phase 1—to discover the best bullet—and phase 2—to make the best rifle—were amalgamated into one phase, and there was no intermediate discussion and agreement before


phase 2 was introduced. However, that is all past, and it is really no good discussing that now. What hon. Gentlemen opposite are interested in, is the future of this rifle. We have had considerable discussions with Canada—

Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest it would have been possible, for example, to have had a .40 or .20 or a choice of calibre? Surely he must realise that the .280 is not a scientists' accident? That was the answer to the conditions which were laid down by the General Staff. There was no freedom of choice as to calibre, and the .280 was the answer.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely confirming the one thing I said I regretted. He says that—

Mr. Wigg: No. The General Staff laid down certain conditions about weight, penetrating power, and the like. Given those conditions, the technicians and scientists got to work. It did not matter whether they were Americans, French, Germans, or who they were: the answer was the .280; and the differences which trouble the right hon. Gentleman, and which he is now trying to capitalise, came much later.

Mr. Head: No. The hon. Gentleman is really indulging in very artful dialectics, but he is not going to catch me out on this.

Mr. Wigg: Nor will the right hon. Gentleman catch me.

Mr. Head: The whole point that I am trying to make clear, and which I hoped I had made clear, is that when we have arrived at the right size of bullet we must then try, with the nations concerned that are trying to achieve standardisation, to devise the right weapon, and the most efficient answer to the question; when one nation may say the .280 is the answer, and another may say the .30, end another may say something else. One must switch to get agreement, even if it comes to some little sacrifice of what, in one's own opinion, is perfection.
For the future—and I do not want to give any categorical statement, because final decisions have not been reached, so this is not firm—what I think the line will be is that we shall have limited production of the .280; and we are also

having research, joint research—with Canada, America and ourselves—and the Belgians, I think—to find whether a really first-class rifle of about .30 calibre can be invented. If it should be so, it may be adopted by America, by Canada, and eventually by ourselves, but, as the right hon. Gentleman says, quite rightly, we have the time factor to be concerned with, and if the .30 project comes to nothing, then that is the moment for a really firm decision.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend now saying that the question of approaching the Americans on the .280 rifle production—that agreement on that—is completely out, and that there is no question of discussing it with the Americans any more?

Mr. Head: No. The question of American manufacture of the .280 rifle is out.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely then asked me some questions, and the first one, I think, was about the issue of petrol to armoured units. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that that is not done on the basis of the numbers. It is carefully worked out, and I think that there is an adequate training allocation, although we are, throughout the Army at the moment, trying to make economies through the reduction of consumption on, for instance, what is euphemistically called "swanning," or visits by officers and other ranks.

Major Legge-Bourke: The only reason that I said that I thought that petrol was allocated on the basis of the number of men was that on page 121 of the Estimates there is a statement that it is based on the number of personnel and local conditions.

Mr. Head: I think my hon. and gallant Friend must allow local conditions, because if we based the allocation on personnel, and we had an infantry battalion and an armoured battalion, we should get wobbly results, and little training by the armoured units.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked me about the airborne forces. As the discussion on the airborne forces proceeded I was a little worried, because there seemed to me a very serious chance of a split within our own party.

Mr. Shurmer: There already is.

Mr. Head: I think the hon. Gentleman would be wiser to keep quite on that subject.
I agree very strongly with my hon. and gallant Friend about the need for our having transport aircraft for the Army and, indeed, helicopters, which are of invaluable use in the evacuation of wounded. It is, of course, all part of the question of the re-armament programme and of the Royal Air Force. I must confess that I cannot go with him as far as saying that the Army should have an Army air force because I think it would lead—oh, here is the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned helicopters. Could he tell us what a helicopter costs?

Mr. Head: I remember that the hon. Gentleman asked that during the debate on the Air Estimates. That is a question that should properly be put to the Air Ministry, because the cost of helicopters is not within my province.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman uses them.

Mr. Head: Yes, but I use many things of which I do not know the exact price.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely also asked me about anti-tank weapons for the airborne forces. Well, the existing infantry antitank weapon, which, I think, is a very satisfactory one, is this rocket projectile, and that is not yet in wide scale use with the troops. As I told the House in the debate on the Army Estimates, it will be coming out in large numbers, I hope, towards the end of the year. I think the extent of its use by airborne forces will depend probably on the experience of rather larger scale use and trials with the other infantry soldiers. My hon. and gallant Friend says there should be an anti-tank weapon for every soldier. We have now the Energa grenade, which is a very satisfactory grenade, and has very fine penetration, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West, will know.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked me about the Home Guard, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) commented on it, too. I should

like to underline what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the necessity for readiness, because I know that, at the moment, many people who think they may join the Home Guard are saying, "Mr. Churchill recently said that the likelihood of war was not so close. I certainly would do my bit for my country but I think I will just wait and see."
If we do somehow blunder into a war it may develop very quickly indeed, and we may have a very short period between its starting and the time when a great deal begins to happen in this country; I do underline what my hon. and gallant Friend said, that if people wait too long, and then wake up one morning to find the newspapers have most dangerous and threatening news, we may find our Home Guard preparations very difficult to complete in the amount of time then available.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley asked me many questions, and referred to many others which, he said, I had not answered before. Personally, I do not feel very guilty about not answering some of the questions he asked the last time, because, quite frankly, I thought that they were unfitted to the standard of debate on the Army in this Chamber, and that no answer I gave him would convince him, with his prejudiced and faulty views that he holds about certain units in the Army.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in that he can hold what views he likes about my speech, just as I can hold my own views about his, but he dodged my question, just as he dodged everyone else's. Indeed, he has a reputation for dodging every question.

Mr. Head: That is not my experience. I think I am right in saying that I was thanked for dealing with certain questions. I will do my best for the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Wigg: That is a change.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman first asked me a great many questions about the Z reservists and changing their dates of call-up. I do not want to dodge the question, but I think everyone will agree that this House is not the place for going into these cases man by man. I have the files here because the hon. Gentleman


was courteous enough to give me notice of this. In one case we have offered an alternative date; we did so on 4th February, but the hon. Gentleman has not yet answered our letter. In another case the hon. Gentleman asked for a change of date for a man who is taking his postal course, but the postal people have said that a change in examination date will in no way interfere with his chances of passing the examination.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the case of a cricketer. That man has a profession, just like a toolmaker, or anybody else; he is a professional cricketer, and that is his living. If we called him up for that particular fortnight it would have a serious effect upon his career, because cricket is his life; it is his profession. Because of the formation to which he belonged his date could easily be changed, and we changed it—and rightly so, I think.
A great many of these cases of Z reservists' call-up may seem somewhat anomalous, for this reason. Take two almost equal cases: one is changed and the other is not. The reason lies in this, that there are certain instances where whether a man is called up at one time of the year or two months later is of no great difference; there are cases in which the man may be a supplementary reservist, and because of the unit the call-up can be spread out. In other cases the battalion may have to train with the brigade on Salisbury Plain only during one fortnight, and the call-up cannot be spread out, so that either a man has to be exempted or we have to say "We are very sorry, but you have got to do it."
That is why there are sometimes what seem to be anomalies, when we appear unenthusiastic about helping these men, but on these occasions the choice is between calling him up against his wishes and exempting him altogether. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that sympathetic consideration is given to these cases. Since I have been at the War Office I, personally, have gone to a great deal of trouble to see that these cases are most carefully examined. There has been absolutely no change of policy, and no question of the Prussian or parade ground spirit permeating throughout the War Office, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dudley.
The hon. Members for Dudley and Ayrshire, South, referred in the debate on the Committee stage to what is, in my opinion, an important subject. We must avoid undue pressure on young National Service men to undertake the three-year engagement with the Regular Army. I am very well aware of that, and I have talked to all concerned to ensure that it does not happen. I want units to be keen over recruiting, but a recruit must join a unit because of his admiration for it and his desire to stop there; there must not be coercion,
We were also criticised because of a letter which was read to the House, but it is a criticism to which we are in any case vulnerable. We were criticised for saying that there was the alternative, that the man could undertake the short service engagement instead of being posted. On the other hand, we might have been criticised for not telling the man. We have a difficult task in achieving a correct balance between undue pressure and not giving the men every chance in trying to get more recruits into the Regular Army, which is of immense importance.
I can assure the hon. Member for Dudley that he is wrong in thinking that young men are given pints of beer, jollied up and told a lot of lies and rubbish. I assure him that that is not the case. From what he said, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be slightly involved. I know that long ago recruiting sergeants had some very fine tales to tell, and lots of beer was given, about which the hon. Gentleman seemed to have a thorough inside knowledge. Today, it is very different. The hon. Gentleman talked about recruiting rewards. There are no rewards in British Army recruiting, except for the Brigade of Ghurkas. That is not at all the case at the present time.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey)—who, I see, has left the Chamber; perhaps he thought it was too risky to stay to encounter his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely—made some comments about the Army having no air branch. I do not think I need refer to that.
Reference was also made to the Air Force having priorities and more money than anyone else, and to inter-Service rivalry. It is, and always will be, my opinion that in war we must eliminate


to the maximum friction between the three Services. Unless we achieve that, that friction will be of immense disadvantage. The chances of beating the enemy are much improved if there is unity of purpose.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), I was sorry to hear, was rather critical and belittling of the change in the basic rate for disability pensions. I do not agree that those changes are derisory. They will be of great help to the men concerned. I know something of this, because I pressed very strongly for this change when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, when it was turned down. Everybody would like to do as much as they can for these men, but I suggest that to do something is better than doing nothing, and in view of the last six years I do not think the hon. Gentleman was well armed to criticise us without making a very critical speech about his own party.
The hon. Member also mentioned the Army chaplains. I agree with everything said on this subject because, especially in the last war, the Army has been extraordinarily well served by its chaplains and padres. One thing the hon. Gentleman wanted was that the chaplains should live in the barrack rooms. That has been a favourite theme of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I appreciate their point of view.
The Russians, soon after the Revolution, had all their officers sleeping in the barrack rooms, but after six months they dressed them up in gold braided uniforms—much more gold braid than we have ever had—and moved them well away from the barrack rooms. If we have armies, whether we are Communists, or anything else, there must be differentiation between the officer and the man; it just does not work to have them all sleeping in the same barrack room. I do not think that was a very practicable suggestion.

Mr. M. Stewart: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to my hon. Friend's point. My hon. Friend was speaking not so much of officers in general as of chaplains in particular. I am not at all sure that I agree with what my hon. Friend suggested, but it seems to be an arguable

suggestion and one with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt.

Mr. Head: I was going on to refer to the duties of the padre. I believe myself that the padre in units must be of officer status.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why?

Mr. Head: I am coming to that. I believe that the padre has duties to perform, and to carry out his duties would be much harder for him were he to mess with the men and live in the same barrack room, because he has to have respect, and I do not believe that can be achieved, except by one man in a 100, by that kind of intimacy and repeated presence among the people in whom he has to inculcate that respect. Then, again, I think that the men would not like to have a padre permanently sleeping in the barrack room.
I had a long discussion with the Chaplain-General the other day, and I was much impressed—and the credit for this rests entirely with the right hon. Gentleman—on the subject of the church houses which are now in existence in Germany, and I think that the House might like to know that every National Service man in Germany goes to a church house for at least a three days period. They are excellently organised, and the number of people applying to go there vastly exceeds the number they can take.
That is a great achievement based on the fact, as I understand the Army on the Rhine—and I hope to go there very shortly—that they have a great respect for this arrangement. In this context, may I, on behalf of the late Government and myself, express appreciation for the help given to the Army by the Bishop of Croydon? He is a very young man and he has done an immense amount in this respect.
I was asked by the same hon. Member about the question of the Army handing over some of its remaining pensions administration and putting it under one roof. I have had a brief discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Pensions and I am going into that matter. I do not know what the answer will be, but it certainly seems a logical solution. I have not, however, had time to complete that inquiry.
I was also asked about the Boys' Infantry Battalion. The hon. Gentleman who raised this said that we were getting them when they were too young to make up their minds. There are always snags to anything one does, and the idea of this was to do a good turn to young boys who had made up their minds and were really keen on the Army to avoid that period when they left the primary or grammar schools at 15 and then had 2½ years of rather unsettled employment until they joined the Regular Army at 17½, which they can do.
That is not a good interval in a young man's life. He cannot join the Army and he does not quite know what he wants to do, and it was felt that those who were really keen—and we do not want them to go to this school unless they are, so to speak, fanatically keen on the Army—would find a great help in having this educational training.
I do not personally believe that they will often want to leave but if they do, there are opportunities for "purchase." The other point which has repeatedly been raised was the question of commissions. As I have said, there is nothing whatever to stop one of these boys eventually ending up as an officer, but I do suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we must be realistic about this. There are boys that think they want to be officers and there are boys who think that they want to be sergeant majors, like their fathers. No one can stop that.
Supposing there is a boy whose father had been a lance-corporal and the boy thinks he wants to be an officer. If he wants that, when he leaves his grammar school, and if he has enough brains, he can go to the other school which I hope to start which is entirely for officers. The boy who wants to be a sergeant major goes to this school. He may, incidentally, become an officer or not, but I do not think that we can say that all the schools must be completely muddled up so that we have the boy who is uncertain about whether he wants to be an n.c.o. or not putting off the chap who wants to be an officer. I see nothing undemocratic about having two schools at both of which the boys start at the age of about 16, one primarily for officers and one primarily for n.c.o.s with a chance to get a commission.

Mr. Wigg: On 15th October, six months after this school has started, will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the schools from which these boys have been drawn, and say how many Etonians are n.c.o.s?

Mr. Head: The hon. Member is extremely suspicious-minded.

Mr. Simmons: Will these boys, if they actually go into the Army, be eligible to come out on purchase after three years, if they want to?

Mr. Head: When I mentioned the question of purchase I was referring to the period at the school. I was asked about this other school—how far it had gone, and was it completely solid? It is not yet, I am afraid, as I told the House on the Estimates, absolutely firm and agreed, but we have got as far that if it continues to be feasible we have found a building which would suit admirably. I have seen some of the headmasters' associations and, on the whole, their first approach was sympathetic, and I have talked to the Minister of Education about it and have high hopes of getting it through.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) asked me about tracked and wheeled vehicles. Of course, it is absolutely true to say that the best thing in the world for getting infantry on to a really tough and difficult position is a stripped tank, and I do not think there is anybody who would disagree with him about that. He will appreciate, however, that if we made that a widespread matter of policy throughout the Army our maintenance commitments for tanks would be absolutely vast.
I do not want to fall foul of the hon. and gallant Gentleman over this because I know he took a personal part in a very successful action in which tanks were used to get the infantry up to a very tough position, but, of course, there will be many other occasions where it is necessary to get infantry across areas swept by small arms fire which is not quite such a tough proposition. In that case there are only two alternatives—the tank or the wheeled vehicle. He knows, of course, about the kind of "tail" we should have—R.E.M.E. and the expense and commitments which we should build up if we had tanks for getting up the infantry. We have had a good report about


this wheeled vehicle. I have not seen it, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to see it, it will be arranged, and I shall be interested to hear his opinion.
I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) about short service commissions. He was complaining about someone in the Civil Service who wanted to take a short-term commission or engagement. I cannot give him that answer now, but I will let him have an answer in due course. He also brought up certain points, the main tenure of which was that the best recruiter of the Army is a contented Regular, but he is not always the best recruiter.
It is, I think, a misfortune for the Army that there is a great tendency for people both here and abroad to want to hear more about the Army when a frightful mistake has been made than when something good has been done. One is perhaps news and the other is not. No one is more anxious than I am that people should hear some of the good and less of the bad.
We have a large number of men, including National Service men and Z reservists, none of whom perhaps wanted to go into the Army, and on the whole it is staggering that we do not have more complaints from them, that they take it in such an excellent way and that we do not have more disasters and troubles. However, there will always be the man who will say, "You said the call-up would be on a geographical basis. I live in Edinburgh and I have to go to Devonshire this year." I would add that we often find that he is a supplementary reservist on a non-geographical basis.
A most unfortunate incident was that concerning Gunner O'Leary, which I remember well. It was raised last November. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me a further question about him, but I will now find out what has happened. There ought to be an answer by now, and I will undertake to do that directly after this debate.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also talked about the reserves. I wish more people knew about the Supplementary Reserve, and I am trying to arrange something about that. The total establishment of the Supplementary Reserve is

100,000, and we are very short of reservists. I believe that the shortage of volunteers for that Reserve is largely due to ignorance about its very large size. In that respect I very much agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), besides asking about the Boys' Battalion, with which I have already dealt, also raised the question of the age for commissioning from the ranks. I have said before, and it is still my view, that the right time to make an officer of a man from the ranks is between 18 and 25 or, at the outside, 30. I genuinely do not believe that a man who has become fully established as a sergeant-major or a warrant officer is likely to be able to change over from the one to the other. Most people in the Forces would agree with that. One of the reasons is that within regiments—I may be thought old-fashioned in this—there has to be a different method of control of men as between a sergeant-major and an officer. That remains true no matter how advanced are the views which are held. A man who has been dealing with men as a sergeant-major is likely to find it difficult to deal with them as an officer.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: That does not apply to the technical corps. It only really applies to the fighters.

Mr. Head: That is true. I am only suggesting that the best time for the change, and I am not suggesting that it cannot happen at any time during an other rank's service. In the technical corps it has often happened at any time, but I am sure that the best time to make the change is in the early period of a man's career.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Is the difference between the sergeant-major and the officer a matter of language?

Mr. Head: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "language," but I can assure him that it has nothing to do with any ordinary form of speech or anything of that kind. On the subject of language, I have known one or two officers who could compete with sergeant-majors.
The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) told me that there had been vacillation and delay about the new rifle. The hon. Gentleman is a very fluent speaker and he likes making attacks, but I do not feel very much punctured by the "vacillation and delay" accusation. There had been a good deal of vacillation when we took office, but since then we have come to know where we are. It was a very difficult inheritance and the situation has been very difficult. It would not be right for me to go more deeply into this now, for I have already taken a long time, and I did answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West, at some length.
Now we come to the subject of the election pledge, which is another figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. He said that I made a pledge before the General Election that if I were elected I would try to obtain a local overseas allowance for Korea. That is not so. I asked many times from the other side of the House why it was logical to have a local overseas allowance in Hong Kong but not in Korea. I also asked why N.A.A.F.I. prices were so high. What I did not know then but what I know now is that the local overseas allowance is based entirely on what one can purchase in the area.

Mr. Wyatt: rose—

Mr. Head: I see the hon. Gentleman preparing to stand up but if he will let me finish it might save his legs. The point is that if one was stationed in conditions of considerable hardship in the middle of the desert and life was very unpleasant, one would have no entitlement to a local overseas allowance. But if one was stationed in New York within easy reach of all the luxury in the world, one would have a very strong claim for a local overseas allowance. I did not appreciate that the local overseas allowance was entirely an allowance made to compensate for a high local cost of living and that it had nothing to do with bad conditions, active service, cold, etc.

Mr. Wyatt: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it as easily as that. I can remember giving him exactly that information in answer to a Question. When I did so, he did not believe it. My right hon. Friend did the same, and

my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) had done it earlier. Later, we even had an Adjournment debate on the subject, when I gave all these answers in great detail. In his supreme arrogance, the right hon. Gentleman would not believe it because we were the people who were saying it, and he said that we did not know what we were talking about.

Mr. Head: The last remark of mine was a very sound one. Perhaps the hon. Member did not explain it with sufficient clarity to get it into my head. He may think that he is being clever, but he will remember that as a result of those representations a gratuity was given to the men in Korea, so we achieved something.

Mr. Wyatt: It was we who did it.

Mr. Head: I will not argue about that, but he said that we created a shindy and were always asking Questions about it, and that it was followed by the giving of a gratuity, and I was thinking in terms of cause and effect.
It would be a complete alteration of policy if we were to grant a local overseas allowance for Korea. Pay for troops in Korea is a very difficult subject. It has always been traditional in the-British Army that whether one peels potatoes in Aldershot or shivers in Korea there should be equal payment.

Mr. Wyatt: That was what I told the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Head: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not make it clear. I will tell him something which he did not tell me. In almost every case the countries fighting in Korea have made special conditions which are in marked contrast to the pay and taxation element of their Forces serving elsewhere. That is what puts us in a peculiarly difficult position. Other nations are giving special concessions and comparison between these troops and one's own troops serving side by side with them is causing great dissatisfaction. It is a question of whether to follow their lead and abandon a principle or not to do so. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a very difficult problem.
The hon. Member also asked for the number of Grade III staff officers, and he had the courtesy to tell me about this earlier. At the equivalent date last year


there were 445 and there are today 377. It is our policy—we have not yet fully implemented the 10 per cent. cut on the Grade III side—to go on producing these Grade III officers and, in particular, to replace them with older officers who are being re-employed.
The hon. Member also asked about Austria and Trieste and asked why we kept men there for only two years. He said that the climate is enervating. It is a very popular place for visits by Ministers, whether the climate is enervating or not. He had discussions locally when he was there and the matter has been gone into very carefully in the War Office. It is a very difficult subject and there are many reasons which are rather complicated to go into, but one reason with which he will agree is that we wish to do everything we possibly can to get the three-year battalion tour going. It may or not not fit the two years, but the important thing that fits is to get the battalion moved whole. I do not, therefore, want to get any exact dates except for Korea.
I was asked about stoves. We have ordered 10,000. I apologise for taking such a long time, but I have had to deal with a number of conflicting questions.

Mr. Wyatt: Preliminary education?

Mr. Head: As far as I know, there is no marked change in policy, but if the hon. Member will have a word with me I will let him know.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported,

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

That a sum, not exceeding £109,800,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY, HOME GUARD AND CADET FORCES

That a sum, not exceeding £18,200,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 1,000 officers for the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, 24,000, all ranks, for the Regular Reserve and 81,000, all ranks, for the Supplementary Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 419,750, all ranks),

Home Guard (to a number not exceeding 170,000, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 5. MOVEMENTS

That a sum, not exceeding £29,300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of movements, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolutions agreed to.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

Resolution reported,
That a sum, not exceeding £30,500,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.1 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the question of training on Salisbury Plain, and I should like to take the opportunity of thanking both him and the Under-Secretary of State for the replies they have given me as one who represents a large military area and one who has often bothered them.
In my lifetime, Salisbury Plain has been very considerably denuded of cover for all sorts for training. I do not believe that it is nearly so useful, from a general training point of view, as regards scrub either as cover for infantry training or for heavy overhead cover for camouflage for vehicles, either for training or in time of war, as it was 20 years ago. Although I do not expect an answer now, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be good enough to look into the question of planting a certain amount of scrub for infantry training and, perhaps, in conjunction with the advice of the Forestry Commission, will also consider planting areas, possibly wired off, to keep out the rabbits from the long-term viewpoint of the importance of all training and camouflage on Salisbury Plain.
One other point which springs to my mind is the importance of the continuity of the War Department Land Agent. He has to deal with all these matters ranging over some 100,000 acres, and he deals with many tenant farmers of War Department land. Inevitably, executive officers


pass on after a year or two, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that, as far as possible, continuity is maintained in the office of the War Department Land Agent, and also that a person of the highest quality and integrity will be put into the position of looking after this big area from the point of view of the Army. There are many decisions to which it is sometimes necessary to look back in regard to all sorts of training.

Mr. Head: I assure my hon. Friend that I will look into the two points he mentions. He will not expect an answer from me now, but I will find out about what he asks and will write to him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported,

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £16,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1953.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1953.

Orders of the Day — ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1951–52

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1952, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1223–4.]

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR ESTIMATES, 1952–53, AND AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

REPORT [18th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

Resolution reported,
That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 315,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1953.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.'

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I wish to draw attention to a statement contained in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State last week, when we were discussing the Air Estimates. On that occasion, he spoke as follows:
I do not want to create undue anxiety, but it would be quite wrong for me not to make it plain that the air defences of this island at the present time would be woefully inadequate if we had not powerful allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The expansion of the R.A.F. is under way. But today it is still far from adequate, either to defend our country or to play its part in the defence of Europe and in our Atlantic lifeline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2115.]
The Under-Secretary of State said that he did not want to create undue anxiety but, as far as I can see, that, unfortunately, is just what he has done. Both the daily and weekly, as well as the foreign, newspapers that I have seen have interpreted his statement in terms which indicate the greatest anxiety as to the state of our air defences. The "News Chronicle" talks about
R.A.F disclosures shocking Members of Parliament.
The "Spectator" talks about
Britain's meagre contribution to Western defence.
The "Sunday Observer" talks about
last week's Air Estimates debate having revealed a tragic story.
While I should not for one moment seek to attribute responsibility to the hon. Gentleman for the comments of the Press, I am sure he would agree that it is very much against the national interest that mistaken and misleading impressions of the actual strength and effectiveness of our air defences should gain currency, both in our own country and abroad.
The hon. Gentleman will agree when I say that today the Royal Air Force is both a substantial and an efficient force; that its world-wide fighter strength is greater than it was in September, 1939; that by the end of 1952 its world-wide fighter strength will at least be equal to the fighter strength of the Royal Air Force at the time of the Battle of Britain: that even today its strength is sufficient


to permit of strong fighter forces being stationed in Germany and the Middle East, and that it could play a very vital part in the defence of Western Europe.
In this connection, I strongly dissent from the hon. Gentleman's statement that the R.A.F. is still far from adequate to defend our country or to play its part in the defence of Europe. On 7th March, the Chief of the Air Staff, Marshal of the R.A.F. Sir John Slessor, made this statement:
The R.A.F. contribution towards a European Air Force was even more than that of the United States.
And today, I read an article in "The Times," which, referring to the R.A.F. 2nd Tactical Air Force based in Germany, states that it
has been steadily built up during the past 18 months, and will soon receive Venom squadrons. By the end of this year"—
that is, the end of 1952—
the allied air forces in Western Europe will have a strength of 4,000 aircraft. To this total the R.A.F. will contribute a third—that is, about 1,300 aircraft. This force will include 400 F.86E Sabre swept-wing jet fighters, which the United States is to finance, Canada is building, and R.A.F. pilots will fly.
That does not suggest that our Air Force is still far from adequate to play its part in the defence of Europe. But before I leave that point, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Department, if this statement is correct, on the acceleration in the date of delivery of the 400 F.86's; because when I was last at the Air Ministry the date upon which these deliveries were to be completed was not expected to be before the middle of 1953?
In my view, it is dangerously misleading to look only at the size of the Royal Air Force when dealing with the state of our air defences. While we should never seek to play less than our full part in building up our air defences, we must not look at them from an entirely unilateral basis. Britain today is part of the Atlantice defence community, and we have therefore to take account of the air forces of our partners, especially those situated in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that today there are strong United States fighter and bomber air forces in the

United Kingdom. Moreover he knows, as I know, that in the unhappy event of another war very much larger numbers of United States fighters and bombers will be operating from airfields in this country as part of the combined defence system of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Indeed, provision was made in the Estimates last year, and has been made in the Estimates this year, for the rehabilitation of airfields which, if an emergency ever arises, will be occupied, and from which United States fighter and bomber squadrons will operate.
There is another vital consideration in assessing our air defence arrangements which I should like to emphasise. Next time, if unfortunately it ever arises, there will be no repetition of the situation that existed at the time of the Battle of Britain, when we stood alone, because under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments, from the very outset of the emergency United States air forces would be operating alongside our own Royal Air Force squadrons. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He must make up his mind where he stands on this point. The defence of Western Europe is the responsibility of those associated in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that each country has its contribution to make, the size of which is related to the size of the contributions made by the various partners in N.A.T.O. It seems to me quite unrealistic to take any one of the countries, whether it be Britain, France or the United States, and look at the size of its contribution and then to state, "Oh, it would be woefully inadequate if it were not for its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation." That is what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that our air defences would be woefully inadequate if it were not for our powerful allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Surely we must look at the combined air defence system, including as it does both the Royal Air Force and the American Air Forces in this country and in Europe, and not argue that if we took them separately they are woefully inadequate. It is like visualising a football team and saying that if we took—this is by way of illustration—Newcastle United with Milburn the centre forward, that


Milburn's efforts would be woefully inadequate, were it not for the strong support he receives from the wing forwards, the half-backs and backs and the goalkeeper. We must look at the team as a whole.

Major Tufton Beamish: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is using almost the identical words used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. For three or four minutes the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been using an almost identical argument as was contained in the words used by my hon. Friend, to which he takes exception.

Mr. Henderson: The Under-Secretary did not say that the general combined defence arrangements were inadequate. He said that the Royal Air Force is still far from being adequate, either to defend our country or to play its part in the defence of Europe or in the Atlantic Organisation. I have pointed out that we are to have apparently 1,300 planes out of this force of 4,000, and 400 of the F.86's operated by Royal Air Force pilots. I say that we cannot lust take the R.A.F. unit and say that it is woefully inadequate, or would be, unless we take into consideration the partners in the Treaty Organisation. I say we must look at the thing as a whole.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether his statement was based on a staff appreciation or a political appreciation. In view of Sir John Slessor's statement, I can hardly believe that it was by a staff appreciation. Was it, therefore, a political or Ministerial appreciation? In my view the country does not need to be panicked. I consider it most unfortunate that Ministerial statements are so couched as to be calculated—not intended, but calculated—to spread alarm and despondency among our friends and partners in N.A.T.O., and to give encouragement to our potential enemies.
In my view the nation already has a good idea of our general defence position. For example, they already know that the expansion programme has been operating for just over a year, and it is not likely to be completed before 1954, or 1955, or perhaps even by then in full. They also know that if the restoration of our national economy had not been given priority in the early days after the war, in all probability we should not

have been in a position even to start a three-year defence programme. It was restored well enough to enable us to embark on a three-year re-armament programme involving the expenditure of £4,800 million—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It was restored sufficiently to put us in a first-class economic crisis.

Mr. Henderson: I should be prepared to debate that with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion. At the moment I am discussing defence.
It has also been announced in the House that between October, 1950, and July, 1951, over £500 million worth of orders had been placed by the Air Ministry for aircraft and stores; orders which covered many thousands of aircraft. Surely it does the greatest disservice to denigrate the efforts which have been made in the last five years to build up the Royal Air Force.
I would beg the hon. Gentleman to qualify his statement. He knows my views. I said last week that I agreed to this need for super-priority in relation to building the modern day fighters we require, the F.3 and the Swift. But, while proceeding with the expansion of the Royal Air Force, both qualitatively and quantitatively, it should be made clear that even today the Royal Air Force has plenty of good sound teeth in it, that it is substantial in numbers and, indeed, highly efficient.
If, however, the hon. Gentleman stands by his statement, then I ask him to give the country the facts. I ask him to state the total number of front line squadrons at home and abroad; the total number of front line aircraft at home and abroad; the number of aircraft in each command—Fighter, Bomber. Coastal and Transport; the total number of aircraft which have been ordered since September, 1950; the total number of American planes, fighter and bomber, now stationed in the United Kingdom; and the number to be stationed in the United Kingdom in the event of emergency. [Interruption.]
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), says that this is an extraordinary speech. When I was Air Minister I had the leaders of the Conservative Party criticising the then Government for withholding such information because


they said there was no need for this secrecy. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) stated that every air attaché in London knew exactly how many planes and squadrons we had. Then the noble Lord says that it is extraordinary for me to ask for this information.
If the people are given the information, they can then form their own views in the light of the actual facts as to how far we are in the position of having an air defence which is woefully inadequate to defend this country. The point I am trying to make is that, if we are to assess the adequacy or inadequacy of our air defences in the background of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we must take into account, not only the number of squadrons and the number of aircraft belonging to the Royal Air Force, but the number of squadrons and aircraft which will operate from here and which belong to one or more of our partners in N.A.T.O. Then the country can decide whether we are in this calamitous position which is suggested when we are told that our air defences are woefully inadequate.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been asking questions about the number of aircraft. Surely what is important is the quality of the aircraft rather than the number. We all know that in the last war the Germans had a great number of aircraft which were obsolete. May I suggest that his questions should relate not so much to the number but to whether the aircraft ready for action are up-to-date or not?

Mr. Henderson: That is a very fair point. The country knows that our fighter squadrons at the moment are equipped with Meteor VIIIs and Vampire Vs. That is public knowledge. What is not public knowledge is how many squadrons we have and how many frontline aircraft we have.

8.23 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) has made a most extraordinary attack upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It was an extraordinarily irresponsible attack. My hon. Friend is well able to answer for

himself, but I should like to comment upon what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. The words to which he apparently took exception were "woefully inadequate," which was a description which my hon. Friend applied to the present strength of the Air Force.
Only two or three minutes later, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to describe the colossal defence programme which the last Government set in motion, a programme which represents over a period of three or four years a cost of £4,800 million. Why is that colossal expenditure necessary if the present strength of the Royal Air Force is not woefully inadequate? I will willingly give way if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to answer.

Mr. A. Henderson: I find nothing inconsistent in that. What we took exception to was not so much the statement of the hon. Gentleman as the interpretation put on it by the newspapers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that I am attacking the Under-Secretary. I am not. I beg him to clarify the position and to make it clear that we have a substantial Air Force. He can say "yea" or "nay" to that and he can say "yea" or "nay" to my request for numbers. That is not an attack upon the hon. Gentleman.
It is not necessarily because our air defences are woefully inadequate that we have had to embark on this large programme. The word "woefully" means something that is calamitous—calamitously weak. I am prepared to agree that our Forces must be inadequate, otherwise we should not have embarked upon the three-year programme. I was taking exception, however, to the suggestion that the state of our air defences is calamitous or woefully inadequate.

Major Beamish: I am sure that the Minister will have some comment to make upon that. I content myself with what I have said.
I wish to draw attention to several aspects of the Royal Air Force which seem to me to be woefully inadequate. I have listened to previous debates on the Royal Air Force as someone who is a soldier, and I want to refer to three aspects of the R.A.F. in which the Army


has a special interest. I want to say something about Transport Command, about close-support bombing and also about larger helicopters. The first and third of these matters were referred to a short time ago by the Secretary of State for War, who made clear the extent of the Army's interest in these problems.
During the earlier debate on the R.A.F. Estimates, the Under-Secretary gave a full reply to many questions put to him. The whole House was much impressed by the care and precision with which he answered those questions. I do not want anything that I say to be interpreted as any kind of attack upon the Royal Air Force. I should be the first to agree that the job that it did in the Middle East, to which General Erskine paid tribute, was absolutely first-class, but I go on from that to say that in peace-time it is clear that it would be wasteful for the R.A.F. to maintain a large Transport Command.
I say that because I regard as a strategic reserve the passenger and freight aircraft which are used by civilian airlines, and which would become available in case of emergency. The fact that that is so seems to me to provide this country with an outstandingly good opportunity at a time when we desperately want to increase our exports. I think it was the Foreign Secretary who, last summer or autumn, drew attention to the fact that there are about 4,000 obsolete aircraft flying on the world's civilian air routes.
That must mean that, provided we export the right type of transport aircraft to the right countries, then those aircraft will be available to this country in the event of emergency. This gives the United Kingdom a dual opportunity to increase its export drive and satisfy the market for these modern aircraft and, at the same time, to reinforce the defence programme. To do this, it is obvious that sufficient raw materials must be made available for the manufacture of these aircraft.
I do not think anyone here today will deny the fact that the latest designs of British aircraft are better than any in the world. That reminds me, incidentally, that when my hon. Friend made the speech to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects, he did not say one word which could be construed as criticism of the efficiency of the R.A.F.,

something which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite unfairly sought to suggest.
When I speak of our latest designs being probably outstanding in the world, I am thinking of such aircraft—I am not a technician in these matters—as the Vickers Viscount, the Comet and also of the Bristol Britannia, which, as far as I know, should make a very suitable aircraft indeed for Army transport purposes.
The point which I particularly want to make on this subject is that aircraft of this character must be properly designed so that they can be made available for military use, if required. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether, in the case of such aircraft as I have mentioned, he is satisfied that during the last few years a military eye has been cast upon the design of these aircraft. I do not mean only an R.A.F. eye, but an Army eye.
The Minister will well understand what I mean, because this matter was referred to earlier, when there was reference to the size of the doors of aircraft of this type, and to the strength of the floor, both of which are very important matters indeed if the aircraft are suddenly to be turned over from civilian to military use.
I shall be very grateful to my hon. Friend if, when he replies, he can say a word or two on this subject, bearing in mind that civilian aircraft are not normally designed for quick conversion to military purposes, should that be required later. In view of the fact that such an aircraft flies at 30,000 feet, or even higher, it is not possible, unless the original designer had the point particularly in mind, suddenly to increase the size of the door from three or four feet wide to 10 feet wide, unless the frame of the aircraft has been suitably stressed. This is a matter of real importance, and I hope more attention will be paid to it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is asking for priority for transport aircraft, and, if so, how does he reconcile that demand with the Prime Minister's argument that there should be super-priority for fighters? Does he think that we have the necessary labour and materials to build both these transport aircraft and fighters?

Major Beamish: We have had all this out before, at an earlier stage of the Air


Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman was present when this question was discussed. He appears to have forgotten the answer which was given. The answer is, clearly, that this new high, super-priority is for fighters, and, if that is not clear to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot help him any more. I am going on to say that too much priority should not be given to fighters—

Mr. Hughes: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by priority?

Major Beamish: I think it should be clear to everybody else in the House, but it is very difficult to explain matters of this kind to the hon. Gentleman, although I must admit that he is a most regular attender.
Having said a word or two about transport aircraft, I now want to say something about freight aircraft, as far as the Army are interested in them. Obviously, in the event of war, the Army would require a freight aircraft which has a good load and a long range, and which can, if possible, take off from, and land on small airfields. I may be wrong, but I believe that such an aircraft is the Blackburn Universal Freighter. I think that the prototype of this aircraft went through very successful trials two years ago, but, in spite of that fact, it is not, as far as I know, on order by the Royal Air Force. Nor, as far as I know, is there any suitable freighter available now to the R.A.F.
When talking about freighter aircraft, and transport aircraft, I have particularly in mind the requirements of the Army, which are for a transport aircraft from which parachutists could jump, and which would require to be a tail-loading aircraft. The aircraft which I have mentioned, is, in fact, a tail-loading aircraft, and would be an ideal machine for freight purposes for the Army.
It seems to me that the matter of the Army's requirements in regard to tactical aircraft and transport and freighter aircraft is something which has been seriously neglected by the late Government. It is an aspect of the Royal Air Force which appears to be woefully inadequate, if I may coin a phrase. I want to ask my hon. Friend whether in the past sufficient priority has been accorded to this question. If not—as I believe to

be the case—can I have an assurance from him that more priority will be accorded to it in the future?
This is a reinforcement of the plea made in the "Sunday Express" or "Daily Express" by Air Chief Marshal Sir Guy Garrod, who is a constituent of mine. He thinks that the Royal Air Force has become too defensive minded by giving too much priority to fighters. It should be remembered that the aeroplane is essentially offensive, and not only as regards bombers. It can carry troops to the fighting line—and back again, if necessary—in the quickest possible space of time.
I now want to say something about close-support bombing. When I was in Italy during the war I was astonished at the efficiency and accuracy of the Royal Air Force in its close-support bombing role using, I think I am right in saying, a fighter-bomber, usually a Spitfire. They were so efficient that they could bomb within 100 or 150 yards of the forward defended localities.
In order to be able to do that a great deal of practice between the Army and the Air Force is necessary in operations. The Army has to know exactly when to call for this air support and the troops must be convinced that it can be efficiently delivered. The staff must have practice in the use of the wireless tentacle attached to them by the Royal Air Force. This close-support bombing is as effective as any other effort in destroying an enemy strongpoint.
It is because this is my view that I much regret the fact that the Royal Air Force is not at present in Korea. The Royal Air Force is, of course, the most flexible arm. The Australians have a fighter squadron of Meteor VIII's which is operating in a close-support role and doing excellent work. It is not a normal fighter role for the reason that the Meteor VIII is no match for the Russian MIG. The Canadians have some transport aircraft there, and the South Africans have a Mustang squadron, which is used in a close-support role. But the Royal Air Force is not in Korea, and I regret that very much indeed. Of course, we have some Valettas out there which have been doing excellent work in an ambulance role, and that fact was mentioned by the Under-Secretary in his speech on the Estimates.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that there is not enough bombing in Korea? Does not he think the Americans have done a lot of bombing there and devastated the country?

Major Beamish: I do not think the constant interruptions of the hon. Gentleman are helpful to the kind of constructive speech I am trying to make.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. and gallant Member means "destructive," not "constructive."

Major Beamish: I do not want to be led away from my point by a pacifist argument which would be much better put in the Kremlin than in this House of Commons.
I wonder very much whether the latest jet aircraft are ideal for this role. They have a huge turning circle and it appears to me that obsolescent aircraft like the Spitfire might have an important role to play in close-support bombing in future military operations. I would not go so far back as the Gladiator—I do not suppose any of them are flying now—though that was an absolutely ideal machine, except for its small bomb load, for that type of operation. I have a suspicion that the Spitfire would be the ideal aircraft for that role in co-operation with the Army.
I regret that the Royal Air Force has not a squadron or two of fighter bombers in Korea operating in this role. Like everybody else in this House I hope from the bottom of my heart that the armistice negotiations now going on will be successful. If they are not successful I hope the Government will seriously consider the possibility of sending out one or more squadrons of the Royal Air Force to operate in this specialist role.
I should like to say a word about helicopters. I know that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is going to ask me how much they cost.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I will not ask you because you cannot answer.

Major Beamish: You cannot answer, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot answer that either; but I think I can give the hon. Member a kind of answer. His views would be a great deal easier to understand and appreciate, and we should find

a great deal more common ground, if he would not always ask only about the cost of helicopters, or fighter aircraft for the defence of this country, and would bear in mind the cost in human lives which would be involved if this country could not defend herself if she were attacked. That is a piece of advice I feel that I should be permitted to give to the hon. Member.
The Army can make use of a larger helicopter than is at present flying. Some larger machines have passed trials and the Under-Secretary of State for Air has referred to two types, one of which is a 14-seater. I know helicopters are being used as ambulances in Malaya quite successfully, but there is not a helicopter which can do more than inter-communication and ambulance work on a small scale. I hope that before long the Government will have the opportunity of giving close attention to the possibility of producing a helicopter which could be used in an assault role, carrying 12 or 16 men, whom it could put down in a tiny space and, if necessary, withdraw them afterwards.
These are just three aspects of Royal Air Force work in which I think the Army has a special interest. They are definitely three aspects of the Royal Air Force to which too little attention has been paid during the last six years. These were problems which were seriously neglected by the last Government. I feel confident, however, that the Under-Secretary, whose descent—or should I say ascent—to the Front Bench I most warmly welcome, will not make similar mistakes.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) made anything in the nature of an attack on the new Under-Secretary of State for Air. I am sure that all of us on both sides of the House would agree that the last thing my right hon. and learned Friend would do would be to make a personal attack on a Minister and on a junior Minister who has only recently taken up office.
Nor can I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the Under-Secretary


replied to the debate on the Air Estimates with care and precision. He replied very courteously and very lucidly to a number of questions, but he also left a lot unanswered. He was good enough to mention my name in connection with three of the questions which he did answer, and I would have taken in much better part the fact that more questions of mine went unanswered if it had not been for the fact that two of those which he purported to answer were not, in fact, put by me.
Of one question the hon. Gentleman said that he was surprised that I had put it, considering that I had left the Ministry of Civil Aviation such a short time ago, and that I should have known the answer to what I was asking. Of course, I did know exactly the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave about the use of civil aviation in war-time. But, if he reads my speech he will see that I never asked for the information that he was so kind enough to give.
The hon. Gentleman also said, rightly, that I had raised the question of helicopters, but he went on to say, wrongly, that I had asked what they were being used for. Of course, I knew what they were being used for both in Malaya and Korea, and I went to some length in my speech to make exactly the same point which the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes wanted to make in the debate on the Air Estimates and which he has now been able to make this evening.
What I wanted to know was when we were going to get a really economical helicopter—a multi-engined 40-seater helicopter. I know that we can be told what was not done in the past, but I do not want to go into that. The only point I am making now is that I think there is much more likelihood of getting a helicopter of this size for civil aviation if some weight is put behind the project by the Air Ministry and by the Under-Secretary of State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he intends to put his undoubted weight behind his civilian colleagues and ensure that he gets the necessary urgency put into the development of a helicopter of the size I have mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also said in the speech with which he wound up the

debate on the Air Estimates that a specification had already been placed for a jet replacement for the Hastings. Was that in reply to the question I put about the Valiant? Is that specification drawn up on the basis of the Valiant, or is it a different specification? If so, I hope that this matter will be looked at again, because there are great advantages to be gained from the development of aircraft which are capable of use both for civil and military aviation. It is so vitally important for us that I hope no mistakes will be made, and that we shall get the right type, and quickly, both for civil work and for the Air Ministry.
I asked in the Air Estimates debate about the control and reporting organisation. We were told that it was being given the highest priority. Is the "highest priority" higher than the "super-priority?" While we are on this question of priorities, could the hon. Gentleman say whether the administrative details of the super-priority have yet been given to industry, and if so whether they have been accepted by industry as being administratively feasible?
I suppose the reasons I received no answer to my questions about defence against guided missiles and rocket projectiles were our old friends security and public morale. The answer to the general questions which I put, I am sure, could have been answered without giving anything away. If the hon. Gentleman was concerned with public morale, I am bound to say that I cannot see why he used the words which he did use about our fighter defences, because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State said, a good deal of public alarm was caused by the interpretation which the Press gave to certain phrases used by the hon. Gentleman.
I say again that I do not think the question of the superiority of one type of fighter as against another type of fighter is the most important factor in these matters. Much more important is the question of defence against possible rocket projectiles. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can give us some information in broad terms on this occasion.
My right hon. and learned Friend did touch upon the fact that not only did the hon. Gentleman say that our air defences were woefully inadequate, but he went on to say that we were not playing


our part in the defence of Europe and in our Atlantic life-line. There are many charges which can be made against the last Government, but a charge which cannot be sustained is that we have failed to play our full part in the defence arrangements with either our European allies or with our Atlantic colleagues.
The fact is that Britain—our country—which gave 70 per cent. of its whole national resources from 1939 to 1945 has, since 1945, done more than any other country in the world to contribute to Western defence. I do not think it should go out from this House that we have done anything less than our full share. [HON. MEMBERS: "Per head."] Per head. I mean that, as a percentage of our national income. We were in fact contributing something like 8 per cent. of our national income up to this last year, at a time when the United States were contributing only 6 per cent. of its national income.
I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, in his reply, should set these matters in their proper perspective and indicate that whatever he was trying to say about our contribution in one particular being less than that which we intend that it should be, nevertheless, in perspective it is false to say that our defences are woefully inadequate and it is even more false and unfortunate to suggest that this country has been doing less than its full share in the Western defence.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: I should like to raise two points. The first concerns what was emphasised by the Prime Minister when he said that the construction of fighter aircraft should receive super-priority. I think hon. Members are agreed that the history of air warfare teaches us that the first duty of an air force is to win command of the air. Only when command of the air has been won can it effectively give support either to troops on the ground or to ships at sea.
To win command of the air, first and foremost one has to shoot one's opponent out of the sky. I hope, therefore, that this super-priority in relation to fighter aircraft is becoming really effective. I think that hon. Members on either side of the House owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Air Staff which, just before the last war, conceived the Spitfire.
The Spitfire, with its eight guns, was more than a match for the German aircraft designed as Army co-operation planes, and if war should unfortunately break out again it is all the more important that we should have the best fighter aircraft in the world at our disposal. Our fighter pilots will be facing bombers which are coming in at three times the speed of the bombers in the last war, at night, perhaps in cloud, with our defences comparatively weaker.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure us that the Ministry of Supply is providing adequate material for the construction of new fighter aircraft factories and the expansion of existing ones, and also the supply of timber and cement for the construction of homes for the workers in the new aircraft factories; and that local authorities, under the Town and Country Planning Act, are not proving obstructive in the erection of these new factories.
My second point relates to our balloon defences. On page 125, Vote 7, of the Estimates, it is stated that balloons are mainly used for parachute training at the moment. I submit that the balloon defences amply justified themselves in the last war. They fulfilled two purposes—they prevented planes from coming in at roof-top height and making surprise attacks on vital targets, and they forced planes up to an altitude at which they could more effectively be dealt with by the anti-aircraft defences. I hope my hon. Friend will give his attention to those points—one concerning the construction of fighter aircraft and the other concerning balloon defence.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: It is always a pleasure to follow my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). I do so with great interest tonight because of the points he made. It is not for me to answer for the Air Staff but, on the question of balloon defences, I think the hon. Member will find that modern opinion is that, bearing in mind the enormous effort involved, they are not justified to the extent that we had them in the last war.
Of course, there is the importance of the maintenance of civilian morale. People liked having a balloon barrage


above them. It made certain that hostile aircraft would remain at a great height. The pros and cons of the balloon barrage have to be weighed carefully, and certainly there is no secrecy about the matter, because from the Air Estimates published in the last few years it will be seen that no emphasis has been placed on balloons as a method of air defence on any large scale.
I hope, as did the hon. Gentleman, that there will be a great effort to manufacture as soon as possible the fighters which are on order. We are told they have "super-priority." My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) asked whether higher priority was higher than super-priority. This is a matter of words. Sometimes it is said the higher the fewer; but here, I think, we should stick to "super-priority," even though it is an awful word, because we want more fighters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the difference between priority and super-priority?

Mr. de Freitas: That is going a little far. I should not myself even ask that at this stage of the debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not lead me into those fields.
Last week I did not realise, nor I think did any hon. Member taking part in the debate, that the wording of the Under-Secretary's speech was such as to give a wholly misleading impression of the strength of the R.A.F. and so to do great harm to Western defence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) submitted. When I read the Press, both home and foreign, I was pleased to remember that the Under-Secretary had a chance tonight to undo a great deal of the harm to Western defence which was unwittingly done by his last speech. He can undo it by giving us some considered opinion of the real strength of the R.A.F. today. In doing so, he can also dwell on the unparalleled contribution which this country has made to the defence of the West.
My speech will be short, because the Under-Secretary will obviously want time in which to reply, but there are two points on which I want information. The

first concerns the reserves of large transport aircraft. A great deal was said about this last Tuesday, and transport was mentioned today, too, by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish). Did the Under-Secretary do justice last Tuesday to the large reserves which exist in this country, not only in the Corporations, not only in the charter companies, but also in store in the Royal Air Force? Again, did he do justice to our reserves in the hundreds, possibly thousands, of experienced pilots available?
The second important point—and I told the hon. Gentleman that I should ask him this—concerns married quarters. Can we have a clear, concise statement on the problem of married quarters? When can we expect to reach the figure of 23,000 mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend in the last Estimates debate? In the Estimates there are references to married quarters in Vote 11, on page 186, and in Vote 8, on pages 135 and 139, but it is hard to get the full story from them.
In the debate on Tuesday I mentioned that we had reached a stage in which what we were debating was the shortage of equipment, whereas many years ago the questions were questions of manning, and I said:
In our Estimates debate in those days we were chiefly concerned in discussing problems which flowed from demobilising a vast war machine and simultaneously building up an efficient, modern Air Force. I ask hon. Members who were not in this House at that time … to realise just what a problem it was to preserve the structure of an Air Force when one was demobilising at the rate then necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March. 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2259.]
My right hon. and learned Friend is entitled to some credit for the married quarters programme and I cite this tonight because it is just this programme which is one of the factors responsible for the situation today in which manning is not a major problem. In spite of the appalling post-war difficulties, there were by September, 1949, more married quarters per man in the Royal Air Force than there had been in September, 1939, 10 years before.
Can we have a guarantee that there will be no slacking off in the married quarters programme? Not only is it important in itself, but a matter like that is responsible


for the fact that there is so little trouble about manning today. The House now expects the Government of the day to see that houses are provided for the people of the country, and this applies also to the citizens who happen to be serving in the Armed Forces, I beg the Under-Secretary of State, in dealing with the major point of the effect of an unfortunate phrase in his speech of last week, not to overlook these subsidiary but also important points.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) drew the attention of the House to the importance of an adequate strategic reserve of aircraft and aircrew for transporting personnel and freight for the Army in time of war. The question I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air is, what is being done to set up long distance auxiliary squadrons of the Royal Air Force? It is quite clear that there are at the present time many young men who, perhaps, have become too old for fighter operations but who are eminently suitable for a strategic reserve for long distance bombing or transport work in twin-engined or four-engined aircraft.
Unless those young men can receive adequate and continual training, they will not be in a position to be used in a state of national emergency. It seems to me, therefore, very important, if the strategic reserve, which, I think, both sides of the House agree should be maintained, is to be built up satisfactorily, that steps must be taken, and taken quickly, to establish those long distance auxiliary squadrons.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), I think, when the Labour Government were in power, initiated discussions in connection with the formation of such squadrons, but, so far as I am aware, no action has been taken—or was not taken, certainly, when the late Government were in power.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to auxiliary transport squadrons?

Sir W. Wakefield: Long-range auxiliary squadrons to implement, in time of war, transport squadrons of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would direct his question to the Minister, who I am sure will tell him the number of squadrons that were formed and about to be formed before the change of Government.

Sir W. Wakefield: I do not know, but I am under the impression that one long-distance auxiliary squadron has been formed, but it has not functioned effectively. I stand subject to correction, but, as far as I am aware, there are no long-range auxiliary squadrons operating and training these aircrew at the present time.
It is highly desirable that steps should be taken as quickly as possible to form such squadrons, particularly in the North of England, where there is a very large potential of young men able and willing to undertake such reserve work and hold themselves in readiness for any air emergency which may face the country. There is no need to amplify the point. I merely draw attention to the need for having this strategic reserve behind the Royal Air Force and the, as it were, mercantile marine of the air. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that action is being taken to develop the long-range auxiliary squadrons of the Royal Air Force.

9.7 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: If it is true that our contribution is not yet good enough or adequate, can the Under-Secretary give the House some idea of what he thinks would be adequate and what the cost would be? In doing so, however, I hope he will bear in mind that it is important that we should be suspicious of some of these somewhat greedy and at times voracious demands from Service Departments.
We remember from the past that, if we fall into the trap of mass-producing any particular type of weapon, we may find ourselves woefully inadequately prepared to meet any crisis when it arises. That was the Germans plight under the Nazis; they appeared to get ahead of us but then found themselves with obsolete aircraft as compared with the Spitfire which we had, although not in large numbers.
The House will be interested, I know, when I say that we from North Staffordshire are vitally interested in this matter. Reginald Mitchell was a North Staffordshire boy, born and bred in our area.


He had great genius, and his contribution to the defence of our country and of Europe, and perhaps of the freedom of the whole world, may well be said to have been almost unique. I therefore ask what is being done to encourage boys like Mitchell, who with their ability and their genius came from humble homes in places like North Staffordshire. There must be available hundreds more of that type. What is being done to give them the necessary encouragement so that in design we shall always lead, as we did in that crucial year, 1939.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), will, I know, agree that, although we still remember and mention Mitchell's name, we tend not to give sufficient honour to those who serve our country so uniquely well in supreme crises; we tend to forget them in time of peace. We do not search them out; we do not make anything like the fuss of them that is made in the Soviet Union of the designers of their modern aircraft. Although I am the last person who could be accused of being a militarist, I do feel that genius, wherever it lies, should be encouraged, and that our duty should be, not to ask for continual cascades of money to be poured out, perhaps thoughtlessly, but to use that money with discretion and forethought, because in that way we defend ourselves best.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I want to make only a short intervention. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) intervened in the Army Estimates debate, so I am only getting my own back. I want to say a word about the question of training for inter-Service co-operation. One had only to be at the military manœuvres in Germany this autumn to see the brilliant way in which the British Air Force and the Air Forces from all the Western Union countries co-operated. Many of them flew on to the airfields only an hour before operations, and within 10 minutes of getting their orders they were off on operational flights, attacking their targets.
The training for inter-Service co-operation should take place, I suggest, on a lower level than it does now at the Imperial Service College and so on. We want it on the squadron leader-battalion

commander level so that they have a better understanding of the intimate use of aircraft in speedy attack and offence than exists at this moment. We had that understanding during the war but it has now been lost. That has happened after every war. I want to quote this one example, which was misquoted in the speech which I made on the Army Estimates.
In the Italian campaign, I had the whole of my squadron's leaders talking to the air. By the time that orders get back from brigade it is too late to do anything. I want tank squadron leaders to be able to call aircraft straight down to tackle an objective within five minutes or half a minute of calling for it. I hope that my hon. Friend will do everything in his power to see that high-level officers who are against this sort of thing because they feel that power has gone out of their hands are curtailed in their efforts in this respect, and that we will get this training in that kind of co-operation at a far lower level than is the case at the moment.

9.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I tried in my opening speech last Tuesday to be as scrupulously fair as I possibly could, and particularly to avoid trying to score party points. Indeed, during the course of my speech I said this:
When the re-armament programme was first considered in 1950 the Government of the day took immediate action to increase training facilities. As a result, training expansion is now well under way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2113.]
I was, therefore, very disappointed that the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) in his speech this evening departed from his usual meticulous fairness when he implied that my speech was based on politics rather than on facts. While naturally I take full responsibility for what I said last Tuesday, and, indeed, I would say exactly the same thing again if I had to make that speech tomorrow—

Mr. A. Henderson: The same wording?

Mr. Ward: I take the full responsibility but the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, because he was at the Air Ministry much longer than I have been, what the custom is in the preparation of an Estimates speech, and


he knows, as well as I do, that it goes in draft form round the Department and is very carefully examined and vetted by all the sections concerned. Therefore, it is not really fair to say that it was a political speech rather than one based on facts.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and other speakers this evening have said that I gave a misleading impression. I cannot agree with that. I do not think it is true to say that the Press took that line either. On the contrary, practically all the editorial comment on it was exactly in the opposite sense; that what I said could not have been clearer or more concise.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no desire whatever to write down the value of the Royal Air Force or to denigrate its efficiency in any way. Why should I? I have the most tremendous regard for the Royal Air Force, and have had all my life.
I took care in my speech to stress that both the Meteor and the Vampire were capable of tackling most of the enemy types of bombers which are likely to attack us in large numbers for some time to come. Those were approximately my words. I also paid a high tribute to the quality of our pilots, and I pointed out that their quality would no doubt largely counteract the deficiencies in aircraft performance.
Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the defence of these shores is primarily our responsibility. It is quite wrong to sit back and say, "It is quite all right. We will just wait for the Americans to come and do it for us."

Mr. E. Shinwell: My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that.

Mr. Ward: It was implied.

Mr. Shinwell: No, my right hon. and learned Friend did not say that.

Mr. A. Henderson: Most emphatically, I said no such thing. The hon. Gentleman is indulging in tit for tat. He suggests that I made a certain interpretation and he is now putting a certain interpretation on what I said. I did not suggest that we should wait for the Americans to come to the United Kingdom. What I said was that we must look

at the combined defence scheme, which includes the stationing of American fighter and bomber squadrons in this country.

Mr. Ward: If I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I willingly withdraw and apologise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to the fact that American squadrons were here and that more American aircraft would be available, and he certainly gave me the impression that he was relying on the Americans rather than on our Air Force to defend this country. That is quite wrong, and we must accept the primary responsibility of defending these shores.
Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not seriously contend that we could defend this country adequately at a time when we have not one fighter in service to match the MIG.15 in performance figures, at a time when the control and reporting system, on which our air defence leans so heavily, has not been restored to its war-time efficiency, let alone modernised, at a time when our medium bomber force is still armed with Washingtons and Lincolns and the build-up of the Canberra force is going slowly, and, finally, at a time when our home-based photographic reconnaissance force is still armed with the piston-engined Mosquito.
These are perfectly fair points, and, while I do not want to denigrate anybody, the fact remains that, if enemy bombers come over in large numbers escorted by large numbers of enemy fighters, it is no earthly good pretending that a straight-winged type of fighter would be a match for a swept-winged or a delta-winged type of aircraft. I mentioned in my speech—I tried to make it clear—the important jump forward between the straight-winged and the swept-winged types. We cannot possibly expect our pilots to go into battle in straight-winged types against pilots flying swept-winged types, because it simply would not be fair.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if bombers come over England in large numbers escorted by fighters, there is a need for a large number of defending fighters. We cannot keep all our aircraft in the air at the same time. A proportion of them must be on the ground—servicing, re-arming and refuelling. Therefore, if we are to engage large numbers of escorted bombers, we have


got to have a very large number of fighters. We have not got that large number yet, although I did say that the expansion of the R.A.F. was under way, and it is; but at the moment we still have not got enough.
Although I agree with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and others that we have made, and are making, a very good contribution to N.A.T.O.—I never denied that—at the same time the build-up of our own Air Force is going too slowly and must be accelerated.

Mr. Beswick: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that if bombers escorted by fighters came over these shores, they would be attacking, not Britain, not just one country, but an Anglo-American base, and in those circumstances would it not be reasonable to expect that with our fighters would be American fighters also?

Mr. Ward: That is exactly the point I am making. Hon. Members on the other side seem to think that it is perfectly all right for us to hang on to our obsolescent types of fighters as long as the Americans look after us with their Sabres.

Mr. Shinwell: We do not accept that.

Mr. Ward: I do not accept that. I believe that we should have the latest types of fighters, in addition.
My aim, as, I am sure, is the aim of hon. Members opposite also, is, simply, to see by all means possible that if our pilots have to go into action, they will do so at least on equal terms with their opponents, and if possible on superior terms. Anything less than that would not be fair to our R.A.F. pilots. I hope that I have disposed of that satisfactorily.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), in a very helpful and interesting speech, referred to aircraft capable of carrying and dropping the heavy and bulky loads required by the Army. There is little I can add to the remarks I made in my winding-up speech last Tuesday, when I explained that the C.119 Packet would have been quite adequate for this purpose and that it would, therefore, have been unwise to go ahead with the ordering of another type until we knew definitely whether we

would get those Packets. I repeat my assurance that now that we have been definitely disappointed in this, we are going ahead and studying the problem of re-equipping part of Transport Command with a suitable freighter aircraft. Further than that I cannot go at the moment.
As regards modifying civil aircraft to take Army requirements, this would necessitate, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, considerable constructional alterations, and would have two effects. First, it would mean grounding the civil aircraft for quite some time, and second, having carried out the modifications and alterations, the weight of the aircraft would be increased to such an extent that the passenger-carrying payload would be reduced beyond economical limits. It would put our airlines at a great disadvantage in competition with foreign airlines if they had to carry that handicap.
Of course, on the outbreak of war, these aircraft could be modified, but we would then have to consider in the light of existing circumstances whether the loss of airlift while these modifications were being carried out was justified. Following on from that, came the question of the Auxiliary Transport squadrons. As the House knows, we already have one—622 Squadron—based on Airwork, Limited, which was formed entirely from the employees of the company. In the event of war that squadron will be mobilised and the aircraft of the company requisitioned.
The formation of three further squadrons has been discussed, the three squadrons being based on Lancashire, on Scottish and on Hunting. But our experience with the existing squadron has revealed certain difficulties and has shown the need for a substantial modification of the original scheme, which is now seen to have been rather too rigid. The companies concerned have been fully consulted and are giving every possible assistance.
I think the House will, however, agree it will be unwise to go ahead immediately with the forming of these new squadrons until we are absolutely satisfied that the difficulties can be overcome, because they are difficulties which will apply to the three new squadrons as much as to the first one. Meanwhile, the delay in forming these additional


squadrons will not in any way affect the ability of the companies to provide the air transport needed in an emergency. As the House knows, we have already made use of charter companies for a considerable amount of trooping work.
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the mistake I clearly made in winding up, but I do not think he was quite fair to me because he implied that I did not answer the questions put to me. Let me give him the figures. Out of 41 points of substance raised during the debate I answered 34—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And missed out seven of the most important.

Mr. Ward: My speech lasted 40 minutes, I could not do more than that. I apologise to the hon. Member if he was one of the unlucky ones whom I did not answer quite so fully as the others, but I will answer one of the points which he made tonight. The control and reporting system has been allotted by the Prime Minister the same super-priority as the building of the new fighters.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) asked about the married quarters programme. I will try to explain this as quickly as I can in the short time at my disposal. It is financed partly out of Vote 8 and partly out of Vote 11. Vote 11 provides for expenditure on permanent married quarters in England, Scotland and Wales financed out of the Armed Forces Housing Loan Act, 1949. Vote 8 provides for all married quarters at home not eligible for loans under this Act, and for those eligible under the Act, but which are in excess of the amount granted to the Air Force under the Act, and third for married quarters abroad.
Under the Act, of course, all married quarters built must be suitable for general housing purposes if they are no longer required by the Royal Air Force. By 1st April we shall have completed 2,000 married quarters started during the year, and a further 4,400 will be under construction. Expenditure under Votes 8 and 11 will be approximately £7 million. It will cover the completion of quarters already started at home and starts on further married quarters up to a maximum of 4,000. Although we shall do our best it may not be possible to complete this maximum figure.
I am sorry if I have not been able to answer all the points, but I have done my best in the time available and I will say again that we shall examine all the speeches very fully.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Bill to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and Air Force; and to amend certain enactments relating to the armed forces of the Crown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Antony Head, Mr. J. P. L. Thomas, Mr. George Ward and Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

"to provide, during 12 months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force; and to amend certain enactments relating to the armed forces of the Crown," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

It being after half-past Nine o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution."

VOTE A. ADDITIONAL NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That an additional number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 15,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952.

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

That a sum, not exceeding £87,250,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £1,979,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 109,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, 11,250, all ranks,


for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and 5,500, all ranks, for other personnel to be called up for training under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Act, 1951), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES

That a sum, not exceeding £161,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS

That a sum, not exceeding £73,440,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £2,130,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Royal Society, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

That a sum, not exceeding £3,720,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953.

Orders of the Day — AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,800,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2283–4.]

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

REPORT [19th March]

CLASS IX

VOTE 17. TIN

That a sum, not exceeding £4,092,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Materials for the purchase, storage and handling of tin for sale to the Government of the United States of America.

CLASS I

VOTE 27. SCOTTISH HOME DEPARTMENT

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home Department, and the salary of a Minister of State; expenses in connection with private legislation; expenses on, and subsidies for, certain transport services; grants in connection with physical training and recreation, coast protection works, services in Development Areas, etc.; grants and expenses in connection with services relating to children and young persons and with probation services; certain grants in aid; and sundry other services.

CLASS VI

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; provision of emergency accommodation for visitors to the Festival of Britain; and other services.

VOTE 3. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT AREAS

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £253,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for financial assistance to industrial undertakings in Development Areas, including remanet expenditure in respect of similar assistance in former Special Areas.

VOTE 8. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,620,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research; services in connection with live stock; land settlement; land drainage; purchase, adaptation, development and management of land; agricultural credits and marketing; the prevention of food infestation: agricultural training and settlement schemes; fishery organisation, research and development; and sundry other services.

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

VOTE 11. SURVEYS OF GREAT BRITAIN, &C.

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £17,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the survey of Great Britain and other mapping services.

VOTE 14. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £202,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport, including the expenses of the Transport Tribunal, the Road and Rail Appeal Tribunal and the Transport Arbitration Tribunal, and sundry other services.

VOTE 22. FISHERIES, SCOTLAND

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £278,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses in connection with the administration of Scottish fishery services, including assistance to the near and middle distance and inshore fishing industry and to fishermen's co-operative societies, &c., and a grant in aid of piers or quays.

CLASS II

VOTE 1. FOREIGN SERVICE

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £104,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including Her Majesty's Missions and Consulates abroad and the salary of a Minister of State.

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,784,980, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for sundry expenses connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.

VOTE 7. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £715,350, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for sundry Commonwealth services, including certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant in aid to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1951–52

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,866,980, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 2446–7.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Minister of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1951–52

REPORT [21st February]

CLASS V

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL INSURANCE

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £904,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of National Insurance, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund and the Industrial Injuries Fund; payments in respect of family allowances; certain expenses in connection with national insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowances and workmen's compensation; and sundry other services.

VOTE 10. NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,980,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the National Assistance Board and of certain Appeal Tribunals; non-contributory old age pensions, including pensions to blind persons; assistance grants, &c.; expenses of re-establishment centres, &c.; reception centres, &c.; and the maintenance of certain classes of Poles in Great Britain.

CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply for the supply of munitions, aircraft, common-user and other articles and atomic energy and for research and development, inspection, storage, disposal and capital and ancillary services related thereto; for administrative services in connection with the iron and steel, non-ferrous and light metals and engineering industries; for the operation of the Royal Ordnance Factories and official car services; and for miscellaneous supplies and services.

VOTE 2. MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (TRADING SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY)

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,788,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenditure of the Ministry of Supply on trading services, scrap metal recovery and assistance to industry.

VOTE 3. MINISTRY OF FOOD

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,900,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

VOTE 13. MINISTRY OF FOOD (STRATEGIC RESERVES)

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for expenses of the Ministry of Food in connection with the procurement and maintenance of strategic reserves.

VOTE 4. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (SHIPPING AND WAR TERMINAL SERVICES)

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for certain shipping and inland transport services, including settlement of outstanding war-time commitments.

VOTE 5. MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER (WAR SERVICES)

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the war services and certain other temporary services of the Ministry of Fuel and Power.

VOTE 7. ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN AFRICAN TERRITORIES

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for salaries and expenses in connection with the administration of certain African territories and for meeting deficiencies on the annual accounts of such territories, including grants in aid.

VOTE 9. WAR DAMAGE COMMISSION

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the War Damage Commission.

VOTE 14. MINISTRY OF MATERIALS

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1952, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Materials.

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

REPORT [19th March]

Resolutions reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1952, the sum of £132,901,280 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1953, the sum of £1,602,679,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two and one thousand nine hundred and fifty three"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not want to prolong the discussion for more than a few moments, but, having read the debate on Second Reading, and, in particular, the very short Committee stage, it seemed to me that one or two questions had been left completely unanswered by the Parliamentary Secretary. I rise tonight only for the purpose of asking those questions and seeking a little clarification. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) put some very serious questions, and he was good enough to say that, on the whole, he was satisfied with the answers; but they left me in some little doubt, and I hope, therefore, I may be forgiven for intervening tonight.
As I understand the Bill as it is now drawn, there is to be a power to borrow privately—that is, privately in the sense of not borrowing from State funds—a matter of £2 million. My right hon. Friend asked in the earlier stages of the debate how this sum of £2 million would rank—whether it would rank in priority to the existing loans, after the existing loans or pari passu. In the original Act, as now amended by this Bill, there is to be automatic winding-up of the National Film Finance Corporation in 1954, when the outstanding liabilities will become, under the Schedule to the previous Act, the liability of the State. If it is to be the liability of the State, I doubt whether even the present Government will have brought the State into such financial disintegration that the State will he unable to meet the whole liability.
I think the House has to bear in mind that on all sides this Bill was recognised as a useful Measure, and that the Film Finance Corporation was recognised as doing a useful job. Therefore, from the point of view of any potential lenders to the Film Finance Corporation at present, it will certainly be in their minds that it is more than likely that this House would wish to extend its operations after 1954. If it is the intention of the Government to consider extending the operation of the Act beyond 1954, then, of course, from the point of view of potential lenders to the Corporation, the original question put by my right hon. Friend becomes exceedingly pertinent, because there are already liabilities amounting to £4 million.
In these circumstances, it is exceedingly unlikely that the Film Finance Corporation would be able to raise the necessary sum in the ordinary commercial market at the ordinary commercial rates without guarantees. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that, in these circumstances, the Government would certainly consider the question of giving a guarantee, but I am sure the House will feel that the mere enunciation of an intention to consider this matter in future is hardly sufficient in the circumstances, particularly in view of the very important effects on the state of the industry at the moment.
In those circumstances, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as a matter of courtesy to the House, to deal with that matter a little more fully and to say what


will be the position at this moment of a potential lender to the Corporation under the powers given in this Measure if there be an extension of the Act to a future date. Surely, some assurance must be given on that if the Bill is to go through.
In conclusion, I want to make one other point. I think the House was a little discourteous to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in respect of his important argument. It was rather suggested that he was the only one opposing the Bill. I do not think for one moment that he was; he was pointing out the extraordinary contradiction involved in this Government bringing forward proposals of which we approve because they inherited them from us and because they were announced by us before the Election as the intention of our side.
My hon. and learned Friend was pointing out the extraordinary inconsistency of suggestions for advances for capital investment in the film industry by a Government committed to a policy of restricting capital investment in every other industry, including the textile industry, and by a Government which by their policy, in every other sphere, of a deliberate restriction of credit are forcing thousands of men into unemployment and many reputable firms into liquidation.
I would almost say that I have a potential financial interest in this matter because sometimes in our commercial activities we have to face the day-to-day results of this policy. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if and when he has an opportunity of speaking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to convey to him the fact that all sides of the House expressed approval of this Measure for making advances to an industry that is of importance and an industry that is in difficulties. All sides having expressed approval of that course, it will be a little remarkable if we do not have a series of Amendments to the Finance Bill tabled by hon. Members opposite who are otherwise supporters of the Government.
I only intervened for a few minutes to put this question, which I think is an important one. I am prepared to wish the Bill well, and I hope it has a very successful result. I must confess that my

interest in the matter is a little precarious. I only go to the films if I find myself in a strange town on a wet afternoon, but when I address a meeting in my constituency and notice the great number of people attending the cinemas and the few attending my meeting, I feel that the films have a great attraction and must contribut a great deal to the public entertainment. I hope, therefore, that these Parliamentary efforts will succeed.

9.44 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I welcome this Bill on its Third Reading for a specific reason. I am interested purely for aesthetic reasons, in the creation of children's films. This industry has been supplying about £100,000 a year, I understand, in order that children's films may be created in Britain or by British producers, though the actual films, I believe, are produced in many parts of the world.
I do not think the point has been brought out, but it is a matter of pride that only Britain and the Soviet Union produce children's films at all, and most people, I believe, would say that our British films for children are perhaps the best in the world. Certainly in many of the international exhibitions one hears people say, "Well, you know, there are only British films and the rest." That is a very great tribute. If there were that reason alone, I should like to see this great industry encouraged when it is facing financial difficulties of this kind.
The whole technique of creating children's films is something about which we are not quite sure, because children are not quite normal human beings. They are in the process of becoming so and in that process they differ completely from grown-up people. I ask the Minister to keep his eye on this somewhat fragile flower—the creation of British films for children—and to see that it receives every possible encouragement. I wonder if he has heard that there is a suggestion that if a little extra money were offered to those producing these films we could have a children's opera with music by Benjamin Britten. None of these things can come to creation unless there is financial help.
It would be meet and right, while discussing financial help to the parent organisation, to encourage that organisation to give more money to the fund for


creating children's films. This new venture is one of the most exciting aspects of the industry. I should like to have an assurance that it meets with the approval of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and that he will keep his paternal eye upon it.

9.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): On Third Reading I think the rules of order require a Minister to confine himself to the subject of the Bill. Therefore, however much I am tempted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) to deal with the topics he raised, I think perhaps we had better have a private conversation later rather than trespass on the rules of order of the House by discussing them on Third Reading.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) did not take part in the earlier stages of the Bill, when perhaps I could have dealt rather more widely with some of the topics he raised. He mentioned the speech made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on Second Reading. The hon. and learned Member was good enough to wait for my reply and I thought he seemed fairly contented with it, and it is possible that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would have had the same experience. The hon. Member will also realise that I cannot deal with the point he raised about the Finance Bill. When that Bill comes before the House no doubt we shall have the pleasure of hearing him.
However, the hon. Member raised one or two points upon which I think I should say a word out of courtesy to him at this stage. May I correct him on one small point? He spoke about the National Film Finance Corporation being automatically wound up in 1954. That, of course, is not quite the case. What happens in 1954 under paragraph 8 of the Schedule of the Act of 1949 is:
(1) If, at any time after the expiration of the five years beginning with the passing of this Act, the Treasury are satisfied that there is no sufficient reason for the continuation of the Corporation, the Treasury may by order dissolve the Corporation.
Therefore, the power to dissolve, under that paragraph, is after 8th March. 1954.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that what my hon. Friend meant, and what I understood him to mean, was that no money can be lent after March, 1954, and therefore in that sense, although various moneys will still flow in, no more money can be lent from the Fund, and therefore as an active instrument it ceases to be of any use.

Mr. Strauss: I do not differ from that. As I said before, there is a limit on the expiration of the five years, but I was dealing for the moment with the question of automatic dissolution. There is no automatic dissolution. Under this Bill there is no amendment of the principal Act in that respect. There is no prejudging one way or the other. It is simply that the provision which I have read out is unaffected.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, asked me how any liabilities for moneys that might be advanced under the present Measure would rank. I think I ought in accuracy to draw a distinction between two possibilities. The first is the terms on which a loan may be made to the Corporation under this Bill. Those terms are subject to the approval of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, but there is nothing impossible in the terms providing for the new moneys to rank ahead of those already advanced. Of course, those new moneys borrowed may be paid off long before we reach the possible dissolution after 8th March, 1954, under the provision which I cited. If, however, there is any liability then outstanding and the Corporation is then dissolved, all advances, whether under the previous Acts or under this Bill, will rank pari passu. I think that answers the specific points made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Hale: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the care with which he has dealt with this point. I should like to express my personal appreciation of his courtesy and to thank him for his expression of regret that I did not take part in the earlier debate on this Bill, which will assist me in overcoming that idiopathic diffidence which has precluded me from taking a full part in the debates in this House.

Mr. Strauss: I have an idea that a celebrated ancient Greek talked about that dangerous figure, irony. If, however,


I were to enlarge on what the hon. Member has just said, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) might complain that it was not in the Bill. I have given the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the explanation which he desires, and I thank him for his observations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Ten o'Clock.